BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Björn Bergenholtz" data-source="post: 4108747" data-attributes="member: 113430">Laurent, I didn't check the OD (which I maybe should have done), I simply posted it as I happened to find this Paper (while looking for/checking up some Hungarians Eponyms), and since I noticed this apparently self-confident claim (that might have been a somewhat presumptuous statement, what do I know?), of the alleged "correct year of publication", in the Abstract (I didn't read the full paper, and certainly not the Hungarian part of it! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> ).But after having seen the OD I note, in line what's claimed in the Richmond Card; that on page 80 (the End page of von Madarasz's Paper), we find the following short phrase:Thus, I guess, the remaining questions would be; in how many copies that "Separatim editum" was printed, and if those were distributed in a way good enough to satisfy the Code? Of this I know absolutely nothing. I wonder if (and what) Mr Gábor Magyar knew (or still know) ... ?Either way, I cannot help wondering if the Editors of Aquila really would have accepted, and published this Paper, if not convinced, without some substance behind the Author's claim? The risk of 'a fight' with the Code isn't a thing most Editors would treat lightly, and Aquila is a long-standing (today peer reviewed) journal, that's been around for ages (since back in 1894).However, also note that on the page preceding von Madarasz's article/s, there's exactly the same note of an equally earlier "editum" (on p.72), at the very end of von Konow's piece, on Insects, incl. several "n. sp., which makes one wonder how the Entomologists have treated this/those texts? Also see the subsequent paper, by Kertész (on p. 81), equally with a similar phrase, in brackets/parenthesis.Apparently the Hungrarians were kind of fond of "Separatim editum" ...In any case, all of this I (gladly) leave in more capable hands (the Code is way, way of my home turf). No reply needed, not on my behalf (I'm returning to the Bird Name Etymology sub-forum, where I'm more at home)Good luck figuring out, and if this topic/issue was all unwarranted, all totally uncalled, for, if I'm just wasting everyone's, or even anyone's time; sorry!Like I said, I just wanted to point it out, that such an assertion, or statement, was made; "Maybe of interest" ... for any of you Taxonomists and nomenclaturists.Stay safe/B.</blockquote>

Verification