3.9 Article

Considerations on the historic context surrounding the publications attributed to Denis & Schiffermuller

Journal

NOTA LEPIDOPTEROLOGICA
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 173-179

Publisher

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/nl.43.48374

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the second half of the 18th century, the influential Jesuit college named Theresianum ran an educational and scientific project for working systematically on the Lepidoptera occurring in the vicinity of Vienna, Austria. The teachers of the college prepared a document under the title Ankundung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wienergegend, with the aim of informing the ecclesiastical and secular authorities about the goal of the enterprise. On the board of the Theresianum there were several Jesuits, who later were considered authorities concerning Lepidoptera, namely: Michael Denis SJ, Sigismund Hohenwart SJ, Ludwig Mitterpacher SJ, Matthias Piller SJ, and Ignaz Schiffermuller SJ. They were acknowledged by Lepidoptem patronyms in the Ankundung, which suggests that they may have been involved in this project. This Ankiindung was mentioned in the book Versuch eines Farbensystems in 1771, which was authored by Ignaz Schiffermuller. Also from this book, it can be postulated that Ignaz Schiffermuller regarded himself as a responsible author or editor of the Ankundung. Printing of the Ankundung was delayed for unspecified reasons, the dissolution of the Jesuit order in 1773 may have been one of them. Subsequently, Ignaz Schiffermuller managed to circulate a limited number of copies of the Ankundung in 1775, and then the same document appeared before a wider audience under the new title Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend in 1776. Both these publications were at the time and ever since attributed to Michael Denis and Ignaz Schiffermuller, because some subsequent citations considered these two Jesuits as the principal authors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available