. Bonn zoological bulletin. Zoology. of Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758 (see David et al. 2002: 24). La- cepede's volume 1 and volume 2 (on the snakes) were re- jected in general as a non-binominal work. This opinion remained heavily controversial (see David et al. 2002: 22; Dubois & Bour 2010). Anyway, one year later many species were adopted by Bonnaterre (1789) who has there- fore become the correct author of many of Lacepede's names not being available. On Bonnaterre's Lacerta see more in chapter 2.2. As obvious from the title, Bechstein's encyclopedia (1800-1802), "Herrn De la Cepede's Na
Image details
Contributor:
Library Book Collection / Alamy Stock PhotoImage ID:
RHDK4YFile size:
7.2 MB (391.5 KB Compressed download)Releases:
Model - no | Property - noDo I need a release?Dimensions:
1435 x 1742 px | 24.3 x 29.5 cm | 9.6 x 11.6 inches | 150dpiMore information:
This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy of the image.
This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage.
. Bonn zoological bulletin. Zoology. of Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758 (see David et al. 2002: 24). La- cepede's volume 1 and volume 2 (on the snakes) were re- jected in general as a non-binominal work. This opinion remained heavily controversial (see David et al. 2002: 22; Dubois & Bour 2010). Anyway, one year later many species were adopted by Bonnaterre (1789) who has there- fore become the correct author of many of Lacepede's names not being available. On Bonnaterre's Lacerta see more in chapter 2.2. As obvious from the title, Bechstein's encyclopedia (1800-1802), "Herrn De la Cepede's Naturgeschichte der Amphibien" is first of all a translation from Lacepede's (1788 / 89) Histoire Naturelle, but comprising many ad- ditions. Bechstein used German terms. In his "Mefhodis- che Ubersicht der eyerlegenden vierfiiBigen Thiere" he translated Lacepede's system with the terms Classe, Gat- tung (genus) and Art (species), inserting the term "Fam- ilie", apparently in the sense of a species group below his "Gattung" in some genera, like the "Eidechsen" (lizards). He neglected Linnaeus' Latin binominal teminology to a large extent. His terminological system concerning the cat- egory "Art" (species) is inconsistent and confusing. In his "Zweyte Gattung, dritte Familie" (vol. II, like in Lacepede 1788) some current Lacertidae ("L. cinereus, die graue Ei- dechse" and "L. viridis, die grime Eidechse") are com- prised. He gave an excellent picture of the "Graue Ei- dechse / L. cinereus" (vol. II, Taf. 1; depicting the male and the female of a present-day Lacerta agilis), and demonstrating thereby that this important taxon was then differently understood in different European countries (see. Fig. 4. Lacerta agilis (male). Left figure: Draft of the right figure; drawer Rosel von Rosenhof (Cod. Icon. 48, Bayerische Staats- bibliothek Miinchen; before 1758). Water colour. - Right figure: