This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
According to the Library of Congress this publication was merged with another to form Entomologische Zeitschrift mit Insektenbörse (ISSN: 0013-8843). I believe it is common practice at WikiProject Academic Journals to use the most current title, and place something such as this article in the history. I will have to another article move for this, or actually just merge this contents into new article. Anyway, by usiing the most current title it is possible to access much more information about the journal, in its contemporary form. At least it will be a decent article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For taxonomists what matters here is that a lot of species were described in this journal when it was known as Insektenbörse
(very many species were first named in the 1880s to 1910) and it is still so listed in taxonomic literature Eg. here [1]
So long as the journal can be found ( a redirect?) what it is titled in the article is for me unimportant. Will you take this article over please.This is not my arena. All I know is that the 19th early 20th journal confuses librarians as much as it confused me. It is very hard to access. Very best regards and thanks Notafly (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. This title will be a redirect, and there will be a section in the new article focused on this journal. So any information gathered about this title can be placed in that section. Hence, there will be the current journal and the historical journal in one article.
I accessed the link above (Euthalia Hübner, [1819]). What is this page about? I am not really able to figure it out?---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of taxa in the genus Euthalia, several of which have been described in Insektenbörse. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am having an unforseen problem here. I thought since the contemporary title was so easy to discover in the Library of Congress, as well as this title, it would be easy to find material about the contemporary title. However, there seems to be less about the contemporary title than this title available. It seems this title was a supplement for two other publications back around 1909. However, there is nothing to indicate that these publications have ceased. Yet, I can find nothing on them either. It appears that this is the central title (historically?), because I keep coming back to it. However, there is still almost nothing about it. I believe you that this was a signifigant journal between 1880 and 1910. And I think you are right that this is an important period for taxonomy, because I have come across a list which has good number of taxonomy journals during this time period - and I think most of these have either ceased or merged (probably). So that is an indication that something big was happening in taxonomy during this time period. For now, I think it is best to wait until Crusio is avaiable for another opinion on this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think that given that this journal was used to describe several (many?) new species, that settles the notability question. For the rest, I'm not sure. I have found that the Library of Congress is not always correct in its info about which journals were preceded/followed up by which other journals or merged. Perhaps that Notafly can come up with some sources, apparently being more familiar with this material. If there's a clear succession of journals, I think that one article on them would be the best way to go, because that would give a more substantial article. The title should be the most recent one, with older titles redirecting to it. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
