L. Forró - É. Murai szerk.: Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica 5. 1989 (Budapest, 1989)

Forró, L.; Brtek, J.: References to E. Daday (1914-1927): "Monographie systematique des Phyllopodes Conchostraces"

MISCELLANEA ZOOLOGICA Tomus 5. 1989. HUNGARICA p. 43—49 References to E. DADAY (1914-1927): „Monographie systématique des Phyllopodes Conchostraces" By L. FORRÓ and J. BRTEK (Received September 1, 1988) ABSTRACT. The Conchostraca monograph by DADAY was published without references. In this paper all the 136 items of the references originally used are listed. The numbering of this list corresponds to that of the monograph. KEY WORDS: E. Daday, Conchostraca monograph, references Conchostraca is one of the much neglected, poorly known group of animals. An indication of this fact is that the only comprehensive monograph of the group has been written by E. DADAY (1855-1920). The monograph has been published in several parts between 19141927 (Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, 9. ser., 20: 39-330; 10. ser., 6:255-386; 10. ser. , 8: 143- 184; 10. ser., 9: 1-81; 10. ser., 10: 1-112). Unfortunately, it does not contain the references part. In this paper we attempt to reconstruct this list in the hope that it will help in using the monograph and facilitate work on the taxonomy of Conchostraca. DADAY published several papers on Conchostraca (see FORRÓ and BRTEK, 1984). One of them is about the Hungarian Conchostraca (DADAY, 1913), and the references therein could be used here effectively. One of us (L. F. ) had the opportunity to look for the original manuscript of the monograph in the archives of the Hungarian Natural History Museum. The complete manuscript was not found. Fortunately, several descriptions and illustrations were found along with a lot of small numbered cards, which had been certainly written by DADAY. Actually, these things served as resource to compile the list, however, in most cases it was necessary to check the citations by DADAY. In the Conchostraca monograph, in the text and mainly in the synonomy parts, DADAY used references by author name and a sequential number. Thus the references certainly were listed in alphabetic order and numbered. The numbering on the small cards corresponds to the numbering in the monograph. In all the references contain 136 items. We had severe problems in some cases, because the references as made by DADAY were not complete neither in the publication mentioned above nor on the small cards, so we had to check the original papers. In the case of a few works, mostly very old general zoological books (such as nos 36, 53, 59, 72, 73, 1271, the original copies were not available. There are further papers we could not obtain to check them. In these cases the Zoological Records were used, and invaluable help was provided 'by some colleagues. While revising the references mistakes by DADAY became evident in two cases: he used reference no. 16 twice. These are "BRAUER, Fr., 16" in the synonomy of Eulimnadia africana iBrauer), and "BARROIS, Th., 16" at Cyzicus gihoni (Baird). Similarly, two different papers by PACKARD were referred to as no. 92a (once erroneously as 192a). Both are listed here as 92a. In the following list we used full journal names in order to avoid (or to minimize) future problems in citing these publications.