Thread subject: :: Publication dates

Posted by zcuc on 02-08-2011 10:05


Occasionally, I find that different publications reference the same bibliographic source with different dates. For example Acta Societatis scientiarum fennicae, 19 published in 1893. Can be seen online here: http://www.biodiv...item/52290
Some catalogs reference chapter 19(3) to 1891 or chapter 19(15) to 1892 and other reference all chapters to 1893.
When I'm looking at the first cover page I see it was publish at MSCCCXCIII and no other data is available.
How can I know what is the true publish time for each chapter? Could they published separately or earlier dates than 1893 is just an error?

Posted by Cesa on 02-08-2011 10:28

Hello Israel,
This is a problem. In older literature, we see a publication, published in parts (or chapters) with their special dates of publication. And it is distributed to the readers so.
You must care the dates of publication of each parts published in different dates. At the end of this process, the main publication appear, for example with 10-20 chapters. You may see on the first cover page of the main book only one date of publication. This is normally the last date of that publication process. In fact its parts published earlier with different but earlier dates of publication. This case is important, if some nomenclatural act exists in such works. I hope my complex explanation understandable.

Edited by Cesa on 02-08-2011 11:34

Posted by zcuc on 02-08-2011 12:04

Thanks Cesa,

I had guess that an old book's "Tomus" can be publish separately in a different date but I can't find any evidence to that date in the text ( at least not in the above online book ) So could it be that this information found elsewhere?

Posted by Cesa on 02-08-2011 12:32

Dear Zcuc,
Tomus of the old books, or volumes may carry different dates of publication. But a single volume may compose of several fascicules; they may also different dates of publication. Sometimes dates of publication were not mentioned there. Under such circumstance, authors search the exact date of publications in various ways. Results of such researches are published separately in some bibliographical journals.
Have you an example that you have hesitation on the date of publication?

Edited by Cesa on 02-08-2011 12:33

Posted by Cesa on 02-08-2011 12:41

Dear Zcuc,
The most recognized journal on this subject is:
formerly: Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, since 1936.
actually: Archives of Natural History, with the following homepage in the present time.

Posted by zcuc on 03-08-2011 09:56

Cesa wrote:
Have you an example that you have hesitation on the date of publication?

Dear Cesa,
I'm in particular wondering about the examples I gave in my first post chapters
19(3) and 19(15). Thanks for the info about Archives of Natural History. Although I wasn't able to find the answers by searching their site I'll try to continue my investigation.


Posted by Cesa on 03-08-2011 12:21

Dear Zcuc,
I didnot see any evidence about the date of publication, except 1893. If no publication exists on the correct date of this journal, then the date on the front page is considered as correct date, namely "1893".
In some internet sites, dates of publication of some species appear as 1891 or 1892, as you already told. Such errors appear usually due to the usage of incorrect information without checking up properly. Personally, I follow the date information that placed on the front page, i.e. 1893.

Posted by zcuc on 04-08-2011 16:25

Thanks Cesa :)

Posted by zcuc on 05-08-2011 08:03

I'd been informed that issue 19(3) dated to 1883 was cited in a 1982 volume so it is now more reasonable that the issues in volume 19 indeed published separately over several year.

Posted by Cesa on 05-08-2011 09:51

In Annln naturh. Mus. Wien vol.8, p.80 (1893) [attached], it is stated that Reuter's Monography on Reduvius, published in Acta soc. sci. fenn vol.19 (nr.10), was distributed as reprint between 1 July and 31 Dec. 1892.
In this case reference to Reuter's Monography must be dated as "[1892]". "[]" is important here, which indicates different information from the original one.

Edited by Cesa on 05-08-2011 10:18

Posted by zcuc on 07-08-2011 09:08

Hi Cesa,
How can you see the reprint was published between 1 July to 31 Dec? The only date I see here is Sep. ?

Posted by Cesa on 08-08-2011 04:39

In my post (05-08-2011 10:51), I attached Reuter's Monograph entered to the Library of the Wien Museum betw. 1 July and 31 Dec. Here is (attached) the title of the list of the publications entered on those days (see Annln naturh. Mus. Wien, vol.8 page 77 (Notizen). However, your date is more precise; then acceptable.