Dating Bonaparte's works is generally a nightmare, yet is critically important because he often used his new names several times in different works in a short period of time, thus many of these names have several potential original descriptions (and not infrequently several potential original spellings)...
The two "versions" of the first volume of the
Conspectus differ consistently, i.a., in the types used for numbering the genera and species. E.g., looking at the number '1', this:
is from a version without typos, while this:
is from a version with typos. Most pages in any copy can be readily attributed to one or the other based on this difference.
Most copies I have seen scanned were entirely one or the other; some, however, appear indeed to be an assemblage of parts from both versions (such as
this one, from the Lyon Public Library -- gatherings 1, 4, 7, 9-34, 39 and 62 of Vol. I are of the "without typos" type, the rest is of the "with typos" type; this copy has a misspelled
Mllvus (gathering 3), but a correct
Beauharnaisius (gathering 12)).
Interestingly :
- Volume II uses types similar to those in the version of Volume I with typos, e.g:
- I have yet to find a copy with typos (in part or in full) of Volume I, which would not be bound to a copy of Volume II.
- In the note inserted in Volume II in 1857 (reproduced in Priority!), EJ Brill indicated that a copy of Volume I was being joined to the copies of Volume II.
I think the scenario that accomodates these facts best is that the version of Volume I with distinct types was the original, while the version with the same types as those used in Volume II must have been a reprint, which may have been produced to be joined to Volume II (as indicated in Brill's note), at the time the latter was published (hence the similar types), and as a complement to the leftovers of the original edition (hence the existence of some mixed copies).
Under this scenario, the version without typos would be the original, and the typos would be in the reprint -- not the other way around.
What I have in my notes re. publication history:
Vol. I
Publication announcement in Bibliogr. Nederland :
Notes :
- This journal started after the publication of Sectio prima.
- It is here explicitly indicated that "Sectio secunda" was pp. 273-464.
Notices in Leipziger Repert. deutsch. u. ausl. Lit. :
Notes:
- It is here explicitly indicated that "Sectio prima" extended up to p. 272, and that "Sectio secunda" was in two parts, first pp. 273-464, then pp. 465-543.
- The "Zweites Decemberheft" of this journal included only the Register (i.e., being in the "Erstes Decemberheft" does not imply publication in some "first part" of the month).
Notices in Intell.-Bl. zum Serapeum:
Notice in Allg. Monatschr. Lit. :
Notes :
- It is here explicitly indicated that "Sectio prima" extended up to p. 272.
Hartlaub's reviews in Arch. Naturgesch. :
Notes:
- Hartlaub 1851 indicated that the first part of the work had appeared in Apr 1850 ("Schon im April folgte dieser Tabelle die erste Abtheilung des "Conspectus generum avium""). This "first part" may however have consisted in (an unknown number of) early sheets, which would have been distributed by Bonaparte before the official publication of the "Sectio prima".
- Hartlaub 1851 commented on the entire (543-pp long) first volume ("Der 543 Seiten starke die Psittaci, Accipitres und Passeres mit circa 3670 Arten umfassende erste Theil des Werkes"), in a work reviewing 1850 publications.
- Hartlaub 1852 was explicit that no continuation of this work had appeared ("Ohne Fortsetzung blieben: [...] C. L. Bonaparte "Conspectus generura avium.""), in a work reviewing 1851 publications.
Dates of receipt in C. R. hebdomadaires Séances Acad. Sci. Paris :
Notes :
Dates of receipt ("from the author") of parts in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia :
Notes :
- the page numbers declared in the second and third batch suggest that the first two pages of gathering 30 were included in both batches. (Which seems unlikely...)
- gathering 44 was lacking in the batch received on 15 Oct, and was received with the next batch, on 3 Dec. (It seems unlikely that this gathering could have been produced before those that followed it, though. Possibly Bonaparte just forgot to include it in the batch he sent to the Academy.)
- There is no cut in these receipts that would correspond to the widely published end of Sectio prima (gathering 34) / start of Sectio secunda (gathering 35).
- gathering 54 was not declared as having been received, despite gatherings 55-58 were.
- gatherings 59-68 were not declared as having been received.
Vol. II
Publication completed after 1 Oct 1857 based on a note bearing this date, inserted by E.J. Brill in the volume, and announcing that he was publishing the unfinished work after the author's death.
Publication announcement in Nederlandsche Bibliogr. :
Dates of announcement of receipt ("vom Verfasser") of parts by Cabanis in J. Ornithol. :
Notes :
Notices in Naumannia :
