l_raty
laurent raty
In volume IX of General Zoology, the engraved title page and the plain title page of Part I both say 1815. The "doubt" appears to stem from the fact that, for Part II, while the engraved title page says 1815 as well, the plain title page says 1816. However, the Code is quite clear that "The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary." As the date specified (twice !) for Part I is 1815, we cannot reject this date without a (quite) good reason, and I cannot identify such a reason for now. (A simple failure to confirm this date based on external info would not qualify.)
Vieillot's Analyse was announced as published in Bibliographie de la France on 20 Apr 1816 [here]. (This is a quite important date, as it gives precedence to Analyse over all of Vieillot's contributions to the Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, the first three volume of which were announced on 14 Sep of the same year [here].)
(Re. Opaethus / Opoethus: Should Vieillot 1816 be deemed before Stephens, my understanding is that we'd need a First Reviser, because Vieillot used both spellings, and the choice of oe over ae to render a Greek αι is a matter of latinization which cannot be deemed an inadvertent error. Under the current rules, the FR would probably be Vieillot 1818 [here], who used Opoethus, which would make the Key's treatment correct.)
That being said, we indeed seem to have some real (historical) problems with the relative precedence of these two works, as
(*) Nobody seems to have used it, so far as I can find. (Perhaps in part thanks to Richmond 1908 who, when he unearthed the name, gave its etymology as "μόνος, single; ὀδών, a tooth", making it identical to that of Monodon Linnaeus 1758, the genus name of the narwhal. To many, back then, this would have made the name preoccupied.)
Vieillot's Analyse was announced as published in Bibliographie de la France on 20 Apr 1816 [here]. (This is a quite important date, as it gives precedence to Analyse over all of Vieillot's contributions to the Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, the first three volume of which were announced on 14 Sep of the same year [here].)
(Re. Opaethus / Opoethus: Should Vieillot 1816 be deemed before Stephens, my understanding is that we'd need a First Reviser, because Vieillot used both spellings, and the choice of oe over ae to render a Greek αι is a matter of latinization which cannot be deemed an inadvertent error. Under the current rules, the FR would probably be Vieillot 1818 [here], who used Opoethus, which would make the Key's treatment correct.)
That being said, we indeed seem to have some real (historical) problems with the relative precedence of these two works, as
- we use Phaenicophaeus Stephens 1815 [here], not Phoenicophaus Vieillot 1816 [here] (for which Vieillot claimed the authorship in 1817 [here]);
- we use Indicator Stephens 1815 [here], without attributing it to Vieillot 1816, who used it as well [here] (and claimed the authorship in 1817 [here]);
- we use Monasa Vieillot 1816 [here], not Monadon 'Vieillot' Stephens 1815 [here], despite the two names are synonyms. (Monadon is arguably proposed in synonymy here, though -- the name adopted by Stephens for this bird was Bucco; if so, and if nobody adopted it subsequently (and before 1961) as a valid name (*), it is unavailable under the present Code.)
(*) Nobody seems to have used it, so far as I can find. (Perhaps in part thanks to Richmond 1908 who, when he unearthed the name, gave its etymology as "μόνος, single; ὀδών, a tooth", making it identical to that of Monodon Linnaeus 1758, the genus name of the narwhal. To many, back then, this would have made the name preoccupied.)
Last edited:
