Copies of these General Articles and Nomenclatural Notes can be obtained free of charge from the Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

 

Nomenclatural consequences resulting from the rediscovery of Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine, a rare work published by Garsault in 1764, in the zoological literature

F.W. Welter-Schultes and R. Klug
Zoologisches Institut der Universität, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Göttingen,
Germany(e-mail: fwelter@gwdg.de)

Abstract. The zoological part of the rare medical work Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine published by F.A.P. de Garsault in 1764 should be considered as binominal and contains dozens of generic and specific names that were new at the time. Several generic names entered zootaxonomy in the early period (the fish names Merlangius, Trutta and Ichthyocolla are attributed to this work and still used), but apparently this rare work later got lost in the zootaxonomical record. Since the 1830s Garsault’s work and names in zoology were attributed to the physician E.F. Geoffroy, who was mentioned on the title page but clearly not as the author of the work, and later to the zoological author E.L. Geoffroy. With this incorrect authorship zoologists could no longer find Garsault’s work in library catalogues or botanical bibliographies. The rediscovery of this work has a significant impact on some thirty well-known animal names, mainly vertebrates. Nine widely used names should be conserved under the plenary power, and 16 others should take Garsault’s (1764) authorship (Alosa, Anguilla, Asinus, Bufo, Coturnix, Cygnus, Martes, Merlangius, Rupicapra, Salamandra, Scincus, Tinca, Trutta, Vipera, Vulpes, Castor canadensis). In an annotated list of names we propose how to proceed with the problematic names established by Garsault (1764). This case demonstrates that the author’s name should always be cited as in the original work, that authorships for names of taxa should not carry initials of first names, and that any deviation from the original name may lead to misunderstandings and in the worst case to a complete disconnection with the original source of information.

Keywords. Taxonomy; nomenclature; Vertebrata; Geoffroy; Garsault; authorship; subsequent absolute tautonymy.

Introduction
In the course of compiling literature lists for a project of digitising early zoological literature (AnimalBase), an almost unknown early work published by F.A.P. de Garsault in 1764 was discovered (Welter-Schultes et al., 2008). Only 50 zoological publications in which new binominal animal names were established are known between 1757 and 1765.
Garsault’s work Les figures des plantes et animaux consisted of one text volume and five plate volumes (four on plants, one on animals). It is rare in public libraries, but was listed in the renowned botanical catalogues of Nissen (1966, p. 65; 1969, p. 155) and Stafleu & Cowan (1979, p. 919) under Garsault’s authorship. In zoological sources (Sherborn, 1902; Neave, 1939–1940), cryptic abbreviations of the title and some names for taxa described therein were listed under the incorrect authorship of Geoffroy. After 1837 Geoffroy was used as a standard zoological author’s name for Garsault’s work and its corresponding taxa. This and the confusion between various authors referred to as ‘Geoffroy’ provided a serious obstacle for zoologists to find Garsault’s work again. We discovered it in a library catalogue by screening electronic title files with Sherborn’s (1902) cryptic data (‘Descr. 719 Plantes, & c.’), neglecting the author’s putative name E.L. Geoffroy. Zoologists must once have known Garsault’s work, because several generic names with E.L. Geoffroy’s erroneous authorship combined with the date 1767 are known, at least one (the fish genus Merlangius) being currently used at the generic level. The generic fish names Ichthyocolla, Lucius and Trutta have also been recently used, also partly attributed to E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

Historical context and issues of Garsault’s work
Here we give a short summary of the history of Garsault’s work. For more detailed information on the historical and bibliographical background see Welter-Schultes et al. (2008). François Alexandre Pierre de Garsault (1691–1778) was a botanical artist and naturalist who worked in Paris where he published several works on horses, economy, trade and commerce (Garsault, 1741, 1746, 1756). In 1764 he published Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine. This contained 729 copperplate engravings, made from his own drawings. Garsault’s work formed part of Matière médicale, a multi-volume work issued in several parts from 1741 onwards and attributed to the physician Étienne François Geoffroy (1672–1731). Matière médicale contained zoological parts compiled by Arnault de Nobleville and Salerne (1756–1757). Many animal species were represented there with long descriptions of medicinal receipts made from products derived from these animals. Linnean zoologists never referred to these volumes of Matière médicale.
  Garsault compiled five volumes, four on plants (plates 1–643) and one on animals (plates 644–729). Each organism was given a Latin scientific and a French vernacular name. The animals were arranged systematically, beginning with molluscs and arthropods, followed by fishes and whales, amphibians, birds and mammals. Garsault added a 20-page index for the whole work in which the Latin and French names were repeated and arranged in order of appearance in the plate volumes. The combined work was published in June 1764. On the title page Garsault was clearly given as the author, and E.F. Geoffroy’s name ‘Mr. Geoffroy médecin’ was mentioned as the original editor of Matière médicale.
  After Garsault had issued his plate volumes in June 1764, readers demanded accurate descriptions of the plants and animals to enable them to understand the illustrations (Garsault, 1767), so he decided to compose a text volume containing descriptions and basic medical information for each organism. This volume, Explication abrégée, appeared in 1765. Garsault followed exactly the arrangement of the plate volumes, repeated exactly (with few exceptions) the Latin and French names for each organism, noted which parts were used for medicinal purposes, added brief descriptions, explained where the organisms were found, and finally listed which pharmacological products were made from them. The content was only partly derived from Arnault de Nobleville and Salerne (1756–1757), so Garsault must have had access to other sources of zoological information.
  Two years later, in 1767, the two parts (text and plates) were re-issued, receiving a new title, Description, vertus et usages. Here also Garsault was given as the author and ‘M. Geoffroy’ was mentioned as the editor of Matière médicale.

Binominal zoological work
Garsault used polynominal names in the botanical part, and today the specific names published in Garsault’s works are suppressed (Stafleu & Cowan, 1976, p. 919; McNeill, 2006, p. 482). Surprisingly, all zoological names were consistently binominal. Garsault’s Latin names for the animals were either uninominal (genus only) or binominal (genus and species). Those which were polynominal in Arnault de Nobleville & Salerne (1756–1757) were converted to binominals. Classifying the zoological part as non-binominal would not be justified because no polynominal names appear in volume 5 or in the index.
  There is no direct evidence that Garsault had consulted Linnean zoological literature, but he must have had access to sources and ideas of the Linnean system. Welter-Schultes et al. (2008) suggested that Garsault obtained some basic Linnean zoological knowledge from Louis Jean Marie Daubenton (1716–1769), who had serious disputes with Buffon in the 1760s (Buffon strictly rejected the Linnean system and did not allow his co-workers to use Linnean names) and who was among the first French zoologists publishing binominal names in the 1780s.

The structure of Garsault’s binominal names
Doubtless, although he did not use polynominal names, Garsault (1764) did not understand the Linnean system properly. He considered specific epithets necessary only in case of doubt, otherwise he used the generic name alone. Frequently he simply changed the rank from specific to generic level, probably without even understanding the consequences of this procedure. His marginal understanding of scientific nomenclature, also demonstrated in the botanical part with its many polynominals, resulted in the establishment of numerous new generic names. Garsault’s method however was not uncommon at the time and was also used by Linnean zoologists. Later authors coincidentally used the same generic names as Garsault (1764), applying the same method when borrowing Linnean specific names for the generic level.
  Some Latin names were questionable. On planche 707 showing a stag and a hind, the names used were Cervus for the male but Cerva for the female. Likewise, Bos was given for a bull but Vacca for a cow (pl. 699), and, for humans, Homo (male) and Mulier (female) (pl. 729). All of these are the appropriate Latin vernacular names, yet Cervus, Bos and Homo are also the correct Linnean generic names. The Latin feminines were probably engraved on the plates by engravers on their own initiatives and not meant as scientific names (Welter-Schultes et al., 2008). When compiling the text volume, Garsault seemed to have realised that these pairs of names did not meet scientific standards and he did not repeat the feminine names. Instead, Garsault (1765) listed ‘Bos, Taureau, Vache, Veau, Boeuf’ (p. 442), ‘Cervus, Cerf’ (p. 451), ‘Homo, Homme, Femme’ (p. 471), underlining that these were the Latin terms that were meant as scientific and not as vernacular names.
  The marine snail known as Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné) was presented in three different orthographic versions: ‘Cochlea coelata’ on the engraving (Garsault, 1764, pl. 644), ‘Cochlea celata’ in the index (p. 17) and ‘Limax cochlea coelata’ in the text volume (Garsault, 1765, p. 376). The last name is not a polynominal name, the term cochlea has to be interpreted as a subgenus. A polynominal name consisted of one genus-like name combined with several adjectives, never of two genus-like names and one adjective. It is remarkable that Garsault (1764) created such a combination, which supports the assumption that he had access to a source of information about the basic principles of binominal nomenclature.

Zoological perception of Garsault’s work
While botanists and general bibliographers have always attributed the work to Garsault, zoologists did this only initially (Walbaum, 1788, p. 114; Engelmann, 1846, p. 168). In zoological sources the work was later associated with E.F. Geoffroy (Percheron, 1837, p. 131; Hagen, 1862, p. 270), and with E.L. Geoffroy (Engelmann, 1846, p. 168; Sherborn, 1902, p. xxv). As already noted, the incorrect authorship made it impossible for zoologists to find the work in library catalogues and botanical bibliographies. In this way the information contained in Garsault (1764) got lost and only some generic names survived. Garsault never published anything else that entered zoological nomenclature, so his name has remained completely unrecorded in the zootaxonomic field.
  The fact that the physician and invertebrate zoologist Étienne Louis Geoffroy, who began publishing in 1762 and is sometimes referred to as ‘the younger Geoffroy’ (Martini, 1767), had the same first and last names as Étienne François Geoffroy, to which Matière médicale was attributed, contributed to misunderstandings among zoologists. Sherborn (1902) listed the following names and attributed them to E.L. Geoffroy, 1767: Asellus (‘Crustacea’), Capricerva, Cetus, Cynos, Harengus, Ichthyocolla, Lucius, Merlangius, Mulus, Ranetta, Tinca, Trutta. Although there is a copy in the British Library, Sherborn probably never saw Garsault’s work. Had he consulted the original work he might have perceived that Asellus did not denote a crustacean, but a fish.
  Neave (1939–1940) largely copied Sherborn’s data, omitted Asellus and Cetus, but added Martes to the list of names attributed to E.L. Geoffroy, 1767. Since Martes was added, there must be other sources in zoological literature where Garsault’s names survived, next to those that Sherborn (1902) consulted. Zoologists have never considered Townsend’s (1956) short note that not E.L. Geoffroy but E.F. Geoffroy had been meant.
  The confusion about Geoffroy’s name is completed by the existence of a third zoologist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772–1844), a professor of zoology and anatomy at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris in the mid-1790s, who published many important zoological works including descriptions of many new mammalian taxa from 1795 onwards into the early 1800s. In his first articles in the Magasin Encyclopédique, published in co-authorship with Georges Cuvier, his name was given as ‘citoyen Geoffroy’, later as ‘Ét. Geoffroy’. Sherborn (1902) referred to this author as ‘E. Geoffroy’. During the process of an intended standardisation of names of authors the fish Ichthyocolla was combined with Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1767 (Catalog of Fishes, online version 19 September 2008, entry Huso). Finally, his son Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1805–1861) was also a zoologist.
  Possibly the first zoologists to verify Garsault’s original work after Hagen (1862) were Bogutskaya & Naseka (2004, p. 156) when attempting to verify the authorship of Trutta ‘Geoffroy, 1767’. Consulting Hagen (1862), Bogutskaya & Naseka (2004) realised that not E.L. Geoffroy but E.F. Geoffroy was meant and that the work, contrary to Sherborn’s (1902) entry ‘1767’, dated from June 1764. It was the first time that a genus described in Garsault’s work (Trutta) had been combined with the 1764 date, albeit again not with Garsault’s authorship.

Annotated alphabetic list of Garsault’s most problematic generic and specific names
The names established by Garsault (1764) referred to well-known animals of medical importance. Most animals had already been named by Linnaeus (1758).
  According to Article 12.2.7 of the Code the proposal of a new generic name in combination with an illustration of the taxon satisfies the criterion of an indication, so Garsault’s (1764) names were correctly established. It is implicitly (but not explicitly) ruled in the Code that only those specific taxa which do not contradict the figure are potentially eligible as type species for a genus established without included species. In the case of Garsault’s names, we are usually dealing with one single candidate species for which the generic name was established.
  Garsault (1764) listed 37 new generic and 30 new specific names. Most specific names represented junior synonyms of Linnean species. In some cases Garsault’s (1764) names were senior homonyms of younger names that were later established by other authors. Where appropriate, we provide a guide for the measures to be taken in order to protect the currently used names for the figured animals. It was not possible to research the methods of fixation of all type species involved, this should eventually be done by specialists of the corresponding animal groups, who might also find more junior homonyms. We did not find any instances of usage for the names Anas sylvestris, Anser domesticus, Aquila regalis, Cervus rangifer, Lacerta terrestris, Mus major, Mus minor, Rana viridis, Turdus minor and others, all described by Garsault (1764) but possibly never again mentioned, or at least not in use today.
  We understand the term ‘stability of names’ used in the Code to mean the stable use of generic or specific names themselves, excluding authorship or date. In some cases years and authors for names on the Official List must be corrected (Anguilla, Antalis, Coturnix, Rupicapra, Vulpes). We believe that an earlier date of publication for a name contributes to stability.

Alce Garsault, 1764, pl. 709 (Mammalia)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 452. Garsault’s figure represents the elk or moose, Cervus alces Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Alces Gray, 1821 (Opinion 91 (1926), type species Cervus alces Linnaeus, 1758 by absolute tautonymy). Alce Blumenbach, 1799 was established for the giant deer (type species Alce gigantea Blumenbach, 1799 by monotypy) so it is a different genus and cannot be regarded as a subsequent use of Alce Garsault, 1764. Alce gigantea Blumenbach, 1799 is currently classified either in the genus Cervus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758 by Linnean tautonymy), or in Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (type species Megaloceros antiquorum Brookes, 1828 by monotypy, regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Alce gigantea Blumenbach, 1799, Opinion 1566 (1989)). Alce Blumenbach, 1799 is currently not used (Nowak, 1999, p. 1093). Alce has never been used in Garsault’s (1764) sense, and specific names have probably never been included in Alce Garsault, 1764.
  If Cervus alces Linnaeus, 1758 or one of its synonyms were to be designated as type species of Alce Garsault, 1764, which would be the only species matching this genus, then Alce Garsault, 1764 would become a senior synonym of Alces Gray, 1821. This problem could be solved under Article 23.9.2. But it is also justified to consider Alces as an incorrect subsequent spelling for Alce Garsault, 1764, because the same animal was meant.
  Alce Blumenbach, 1799 has not been used for the giant deer, although it clearly pre-dates Megaloceros Brookes, 1828. Since Alce was established for the elk by Garsault in 1764, Alce Blumenbach, 1799 is not available, being a junior homonym of Alce Garsault, 1764.
  If Alces alces (Linnaeus, 1758) remains in stable use for the elk, it should be protected by suppressing Alce Garsault, 1764 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. Suppressing Alce Garsault, 1764 for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy would also protect the name Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 for the giant deer.

AnguillaGarsault, 1764, pl. 661 (Actinopterygii)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 400. Garsault’s figure represents the eel, Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus AnguillaSchrank, 1798 (type species Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy, confirmed in Opinion 1672 (1992)). Garsault (1764) used the name Anguillain the same sense as Schrank (1798).
  The name Anguillamust be shifted to Garsault’s (1764) authorship, type species Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent monotypy by Schrank (1798). Anguilla as used by Schrank (1798, pp. 304, 307) can be considered as a subsequent use of AnguillaGarsault, 1764. An appropriate correction should be made to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, where Anguillais attributed to Schrank (1798).

Antalium Garsault, 1764, pl. 646 (Scaphopoda)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 378. Garsault’s figure represents Dentalium elephantinum Linnaeus, 1758, type species of the genus Dentalium Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Montfort, 1810, p. 23 (not Antalium Guettard, 1770 (Polychaeta), a name that is probably not used). Sherborn (1922, p. 360) listed Antalium Herrmannsen, 1846 (Scaphopoda). Herrmannsen (1846, p. 63) listed Antalium ‘Auctt.’ without further reference or description as a synonym of Antalis Herrmannsen, 1846. Antalium Herrmannsen, 1846 has to be considered as a nomen nudum, and the name is currently not used.
  In Opinion 361 (1955) Antalis Herrmannsen, 1846 was regarded as a nomen nudum, and Antalis Adams & Adams, 1854 as available (type species Dentalium entalis Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation by Pilsbry & Sharp, 1897, p. 37). This was not tenable: Antalis Herrmannsen, 1846 had a short description and several literature indications (among others Bonanno, 1684, p. 91), and thus was made available under Article 12.1 of the Code. Antalis Herrmannsen, 1846 was established without included species. We think that the type species D. entalis matches Herrmannsen’s (1846) very vaguely defined concept of the genus, and that the name Antalis must be shifted without further consequences to Herrmannsen, 1846.
  Antalis is currently used by some authors as a genus or subgenus (Steiner & Kabat, 2004, p. 712), for a different group of species from the one that contains D. elephantinum. Antalium must be shifted to Garsault’s (1764) authorship and Antalium as listed by Herrmannsen (1846, p. 63) must be considered as a subsequent use of Antalium Garsault, 1764. In the current classification Antalis and Antalium are not synonyms.
  Any interpretation of Garsault’s (1764) name to represent something other than a group of species containing D. elephantinum would be in contrast to Garsault’s (1764) use of the name. If D. elephantinum Linnaeus, 1758 or one of its synonyms were to be designated as the type species for Antalium Garsault, 1764, then Antalium Garsault, 1764 would become a junior synonym of Dentalium Linnaeus, 1758.

Cancer fluviatilis Garsault, 1764, pl. 654 (Crustacea, Decapoda)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 387. Garsault’s figure represents the crayfish, Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Astacus Fabricius, 1775, type species Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758 fixed under the plenary power (Direction 12 (1955), Opinion 104 (1928)). Cancer fluviatilis Garsault, 1764 is a junior synonym of Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758. Cancer fluviatilis Herbst, 1785 is a well-known freshwater crab currently classified as Potamon fluviatilis (Herbst, 1785), and a junior homonym of Cancer fluviatilis Garsault, 1764.
  If Cancer fluviatilis Herbst, 1785 should remain in stable use for the freshwater crab, Cancer fluviatilis Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy.

Caprea Garsault, 1764, pl. 704 (Mammalia, BOVIDAE)
Probably not a misspelling for Capra Linnaeus, 1758, but more likely an independent name (the name Capra was used for the goat on pl. 703). Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 488. Type species Caprea moschi Garsault, 1764 by monotypy, which is a junior synonym of Capra gazella Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Gazella Blainville, 1816 (ruled by the Commission under the plenary power to be available, Direction 23 (1955), type species Capra dorcas Linnaeus, 1758 fixed under the plenary power, as designated by Ogilby 1837, p. 137). At generic and subgeneric level according to the current classification (Nowak, 1999, p. 1199), Caprea Garsault, 1764 represents a senior subjective synonym of Gazella Blainville, 1816, and a senior homonym of Caprea Ogilby, 1837 (Mammalia, CERVIDAE). Caprea Ogilby, 1837 is a junior synonym of Capreolus Gray, 1821 and currently not used (Nowak, 1999). We cannot exclude that Caprea has been used as a name somewhere since 1899, so protecting Gazella under Article 23.9 could be ineffective.
  If Gazella Blainville, 1816 should remain in stable use for the gazelles, Caprea Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

Capricerva orientalis Garsault, 1764, pl. 705 (Mammalia)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 448. Type locality Iran, ‘dans les montagnes escarpées de la Perse’. Garsault’s figure represents the wild goat, Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 (original and current combination). Capricerva orientalis Garsault, 1764 is a senior synonym of Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777. This means that Capra orientalis (Garsault, 1764) is a possible candidate name that could be used for the wild goat.
  If Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 should remain in stable use for the wild goat, it should be protected under Article 23.9 against Capricerva orientalis Garsault, 1764. We assume that a name orientalis has not been used for these animals.

Cochlea Garsault, 1764, pl. 644 (Gastropoda)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 376. Generic name listed by Sherborn (1902, p. 228), but (correctly) attributed to E.L. Geoffroy (1767, p. 12). Geoffroy (1767) was rejected (Opinion 362 (1955)) so the name is not available. Garsault established the generic name most probably independently from E.L. Geoffroy. The only specific name directly and unambiguously included in Cochlea Garsault, 1764 was Cochlea coelata Garsault, 1764, which therefore, according to Article 67.2.5, has to be considered as its type species by monotypy. Limax terrestris Garsault, 1764 (a junior synonym of Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758) was presented as ‘Cochlea seu Limax terrestris’; this was the second use of this name, but not unambiguous as required by the Code. Cochlea coelata Garsault, 1764 is a senior synonym of Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné), currently classified either in the genus Astraea [Röding], 1798 (type species Trochus imperialis Gmelin, 1791 by subsequent designation by Suter (1913, p. 166), Opinion 479 (1957)), or in the genus Bolma Risso, 1826, type species Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 by monotypy (spelled as ‘Linné’). This means that Cochlea Garsault, 1764 is a senior subjective synonym either of Astraea [Röding], 1798, or of Bolma Risso, 1826, or of both, depending on the classification applied.
  If Astraea [Röding], 1798 or Bolma Risso, 1826 are to remain in stable use they should be protected under Article 23.9 of the Code against Cochlea Garsault, 1764, or Cochlea should be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. It is possible that the name Cochlea has been used somewhere since 1899. Since two generic names are currently used for Turbo rugosus, Bolma might be considered as not being in prevailing usage. An alternative would be to protect the use of Astraea by proposing to suppress Cochlea in those cases where Trochus imperialis Gmelin, 1791 and Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné) are classified in the same genus. For such a measure Article 23.9 has no provisions.

Cochlea coelata Garsault, 1764, pl. 644 (Gastropoda)
Original spelling Cochlea Coelata. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 376, there mentioned in the combination Limax cochlea coelata (‘cochlea’ should be considered as a subgenus there). In the index (Garsault, 1764, p. 17) misspelled as Cochlea celata. Type locality Mediterranean Sea. Garsault’s figure represents the marine snail Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné), currently classified in the genus Astraea [Röding], 1798. Cochlea coelata Garsault, 1764 is a senior synonym of Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné).
  If the specific name Turbo rugosus Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné) is to remain in stable use for this species, it should be protected under Article 23.9 against Cochlea coelata Garsault, 1764. This should be effective as it seems unlikely that the name Cochlea coelata was used after 1899.

Concha Garsault, 1764, pl. 646 (Bivalvia)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 377, there mentioned in the form Ostreum concha margaritifera, where ‘concha’ should be considered as a subgenus. Type species Mytilus margaritiferus Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy, currently classified in the genus Pinctada [Röding], 1798, the type species of which is Mytilus margaritiferus Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation (not researched). Concha Garsault, 1764 is a senior objective synonym of Pinctada [Röding], 1798.
  If Pinctada [Röding], 1798 is to remain in stable use for this genus, Concha Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. Pinctada could also be protected under Article 23.9, but it is possible that the name Concha has been used somewhere since 1899.

Coturnix Garsault, 1764, pl. 686 (Sauropsida, Aves)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 427, there misspelled as Cothurnix. Garsault’s figure represents the common quail Tetrao coturnix Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790. Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790 was ruled by the Commission under the plenary power to be correctly established as a new name and available when Coturnix Brisson, 1760 was suppressed, type species Tetrao coturnix Linnaeus, 1758 ‘by absolute tautonymy’ according to Opinion 67 (1916), Directions 21 (1955) and 43 (1956). It seems inappropriate to us that the type species for a genus that was not available under the Code but made so by the Commission under the plenary power could be designated otherwise than under the plenary power.
  Absolute tautonymy is not possible because Tetrao coturnix was not mentioned by Bonnaterre (1790, p. 217–218, verified in the 1823 edition, where the name Coturnix communis was listed among other names and a reference to Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné) (1766, p. 278) where Tetrao coturnix was listed). Coturnix Brisson, 1760 was established on p. 247 and suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and Homonymy in Direction 21 (1955), today unnecessary since this part of Brisson’s (1760) work was rejected for zoological nomenclature anyway (Directions 16 (1955), 105 (1963)). In this sense it is no longer necessary to consider Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790 as having been made available by the Commission under the plenary power. We consider Tetrao coturnix as having been fixed as type species under the plenary power.
  Since Garsault’s figure is in the sense of Bonnaterre (1790) and the rulings of the Commission, Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790 must be shifted to Garsault’s (1764) authorship. Its type species is Tetrao coturnix Linnaeus, 1758 by designation under the plenary power. Authorship and year of Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790 should be corrected on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

Ichthyocolla Garsault, 1764, pl. 660 (Actinopterygii, Acipenseriformes)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 399. Listed by Sherborn (1902, p. 477), attributed to E.L. Geoffroy. In the Catalog of Fishes (online version 19 September 2008, entry Huso) the name was attributed to Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1767. Garsault’s description referred to the beluga fish, Acipenser huso Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified by some authors in the genus Ichthyocolla as described by Garsault (1764) (type species Acipenser huso Linnaeus, 1758, possibly designated by subsequent monotypy, Catalog of Fishes online version January 2004), by others in the genus Huso Brandt & Ratzeburg, 1833 (type species Acipenser huso Linnaeus, 1758 by absolute tautonymy) or in the genus Acipenser Linnaeus, 1758 (type species Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758 by Linnean tautonymy). Garsault’s (1764) figure does not represent the beluga fish, but seems to be either a fantasy object or composed of different species. The depicted actinopterygian fish has two distinct dorsal fins (the beluga has only one), an anal fin but no anal soft rays (the beluga has both), a smooth continuous and lipped mouth like a labrid (the beluga has a triangular snout with the apex attenuated to a point, turning slightly upward, with its lower lip interrupted at the centre), and no signs of scutes on the dorsal body, the typical feature of Acipenseriformes, so the figure cannot represent the beluga fish. Although the description from 1765 described the beluga, this species cannot be taken as the type species for the fish depicted in 1764 as Ichthyocolla, as Article 12.2.7 rules that the illustration must illustrate the taxon being named. The French name on the plate ‘Grand Esturgeon Poisson à Colle’ must be considered as a vernacular name and not as a description or definition which could make the name available. Ichthyocolla Garsault, 1764 remains unavailable for the beluga and could only be used for the figured actinopterygian fish, if this was a real species. The use of Ichthyocolla by Garsault (1765) was clearly a subsequent use of the 1764 name because it referred to the plate, so the 1765 description of the beluga has no relevance.
  Pálsyni (1789) mentioned a name ‘ichtyocolla’ in an article about Acipenseriformes, but this name can hardly be interpreted as a generic name in the Linnean sense (for another Icelandic article on Acipenseriformes see Müller (1791) in the same journal, where the species is mentioned as Acipenser huso). Huso Brandt & Ratzeburg, 1833 is the correct generic name for Acipenser huso Linnaeus, 1758 if placed in a genus separate from Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758.

Lacerta terrestris Garsault, 1764, pl. 668 (Sauropsida, Squamata)
Established as Lacertus terrestris, Lacertus was an incorrect subsequent spelling for Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 412. Garsault’s figure represents the wall lizard, Seps muralis Laurenti, 1768, currently classified as Podacris muralis (Laurenti, 1768). Lacerta terrestris Garsault, 1764 is a senior synonym of Seps muralis Laurenti, 1768.
  If Podacris muralis is to remain in stable use for the wall lizard, the name should be protected under Article 23.9 against Lacerta terrestris Garsault, 1764.

Leo Garsault, 1764, pl. 716 (Mammalia)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 458. Garsault’s figure represents the lion, Felis leo Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Panthera Oken 1816 (type species is the leopard Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 by designation under the plenary power, Opinion 1368 (1985), where Panthera Oken, 1816 was ruled by the Commission to be available despite having been published in a non-binominal work). Leo Oken, 1816 is unavailable (published in a rejected non-binominal work, Opinion 417 (1956)), and Leo Brehm, 1829 is currently used as a subgenus (type species probably not yet designated, the two candidate species Leo africanus Brehm, 1829 and Leo asiaticus Brehm, 1829 are both junior synonyms of Felis leo Linnaeus, 1758). Both names are in the sense of Garsault’s figure, so Brehm’s (1829, p. 637) name has to be considered as a subsequent use of Leo Garsault, 1764 (it has no influence on this nomenclatural relationship that Brehm might have known the name from Oken or unpublished sources rather than from Garsault, 1764).
  In the genus Panthera Oken, 1816 are currently classified the leopard Panthera pardus, the lion Panthera leo, the tiger Panthera tigris (Linnaeus, 1758), the ounce or snow leopard Panthera uncia (Schreber, 1775), and the jaguar Panthera onca (Linnaeus, 1758). Leo Garsault, 1764 would thus supersede Panthera Oken, 1816 as the earliest available generic name for this group of species. The names of the involved animals would have to be modified to Leo pardus, Leo leo, Leo tigris, Leo uncia and Leo onca.
  If Panthera is to remain in stable use for this genus, and Leo is to remain available for a subgeneric name, then Leo Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and of Homonymy.

Ranetta Garsault, 1764, pl. 672 (Amphibia)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 414. Listed by Sherborn (1902, p. 820), attributed to E.L. Geoffroy. Garsault’s figure represents the tree frog Rana arborea Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Hyla Laurenti, 1768 (type species Hyla viridis Laurenti, 1768 by subsequent designation by Stejneger 1907, p. 75; Hyla viridis Laurenti, 1768 is a junior synonym of Rana arborea Linnaeus, 1758). Apparently the genus Ranetta Garsault, 1764 has never been used and probably no specific name has ever been attached to it. Any other type species than Rana arborea Linnaeus, 1758 or one of its synonyms would be in contrast to Garsault’s (1764) figure. So, if a type species were designated for Ranetta Garsault, 1764, this genus would become a senior synonym of Hyla Laurenti, 1768. Hyla should be conserved under Article 23.9, Ranetta has never been used.

Rupicapra Garsault, 1764, pl. 704 (Mammalia)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 447. Garsault’s figure represents the chamois which was reported from the Alps, Capra rupicapra Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Rupicapra Blainville, 1816 (type species is Capra rupicapra Linnaeus, 1758 by absolute tautonymy, confirmed in Opinion 91 (1926)).
  The name Rupicapra must be shifted to Garsault’s (1764) authorship, type species is Capra rupicapra Linnaeus, 1758 by absolute tautonymy by Blainville (1816, p. 75), or by subsequent designation, or as fixed under the plenary power in Opinion 91. Rupicapra as used by Blainville (1816, p. 75) must be considered as a subsequent use of Rupicapra Garsault, 1764. The authorship and year of Rupicapra on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, given as Blainville, 1816, is incorrect.

Serpens Garsault, 1764, pl. 667 (Sauropsida, Squamata)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 411. Garsault’s figure represents the ring snake, Coluber natrix Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Natrix Laurenti, 1768 (type species Natrix vulgaris Laurenti, 1768 by subsequent designation, not researched). The type species of Natrix Laurenti, 1768 is not Coluber natrix Linnaeus, 1758 by absolute tautonymy, since this name was not originally included. Laurenti (1768) avoided tautonymies and established substitute names without mentioning the Linnean specific names.
  The name Serpens has never been used. If a type species is attached to this genus, any species other than Coluber natrix Linnaeus, 1758 or one of its synonyms would not be in the sense of Garsault’s (1764) figure. This means that once a type species is attached to Serpens Garsault, 1764, this will be the oldest available generic name for the group of species currently classified in the genus Natrix Laurenti, 1768. Serpens could eventually replace Natrix, but under Article 23.9 Natrix could be protected.

Testudo terrestris Garsault, 1764, pl. 675 (Sauropsida, Squamata)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 417. Garsault’s figure represents the European pond turtle (or tortoise, or terrapin), Testudo orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Emys Duméril, 1806. Testudo terrestris Garsault, 1764 is a junior synoynym of Testudo orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758.
  Testudo terrestris Garsault, 1764 is also a senior homonym of Testudo terrestris Forskål, 1775, which is currently used as a name for a subspecies of the Greek or spur-thighed tortoise Testudo graeca Linnaeus, 1758 in the combination Testudo graeca terrestris Forskål, 1775. In the course of rejecting names established by Fermin (1765), a non-binominal work which included a non-binominal name, Testudo terrestris Forskål, 1775 was ruled to be available by the Commission under the plenary power despite being a senior homonym of Fermin’s (1765) name (Opinion 660 (1963)). We do not see a need for this name to be made available by the Commission under the plenary power despite being a senior homonym of Fermin’s (1765) name if Fermin’s (1765) work is rejected anyway and the name was not used until 1775.
  If Testudo graeca terrestris is to remain in stable use for this subspecies, then Testudo terrestris Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and of Homonymy.

Trutta Garsault, 1764, pl. 665 (Actinopterygii)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 409. Listed by Sherborn (1902, p. 1002), attributed to E.L. Geoffroy. Bogutskaya & Naseka (2004, p. 156) attributed the name to E.F. Geoffroy and the date 1764. Garsault’s figure represents the trout, Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758 (original and current combination; the type species of Salmo Linnaeus, 1758 is the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation by Jordan & Gilbert, 1883, p. 309, Opinion 77 (1922) and Direction 56 (1956), also possible is Desmarest, 1856, p. 312, not researched). According to the Catalog of Fishes (online version January 2004), the type species of the genus Trutta is presumably Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent monotypy or subsequent designation or possibly absolute tautonymy. If Salmo trutta and Salmo salar are classified in different subgenera, a generic name for the group containing Salmo trutta is needed. Trutta Garsault, 1764 is available for this purpose.

Turdus minor Garsault, 1764, pl. 697 (Sauropsida, Aves)
Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 440. Garsault’s figure represents Swainson’s thrush, Turdus ustulatus Nuttall, 1840, currently classified in the genus Catharus Bonaparte, 1850. Turdus minor Garsault, 1764 is a senior synonym of Turdus ustulatus Nuttall, 1840.
  If Catharus ustulatus (Nuttall, 1840) is to remain in stable use for Swainson’s thrush, it should be protected under Article 23.9 of the Code. We are not aware of a name minor having been used in the genus Turdus.

Turtur Garsault, 1764, pl. 685 (Sauropsida, Aves)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 427. Not Turtur Boddaert, 1783. Garsault’s figure represents the Eurasian turtle-dove, Columba turtur Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Streptopelia Bonaparte, 1855 (type species is Columba risoria Linnaeus, 1758, fixation not researched). This genus currently contains some twenty species (www.zoonomen.net, 2004). The type species of the genus Turtur Boddaert, 1783 is Columba afra Linnaeus, 1767 (spelled as Linné) (fixation not researched, data taken in 2004 from www.zoonomen.net). Turtur Boddaert, 1783 is currently in use. Turtur Garsault, 1764 must be considered as different and independent from Turtur Boddaert, 1783, resulting in Turtur Garsault, 1764 being a senior homonym of Turtur Boddaert, 1783. If a type species were designated for Turtur Garsault, 1764, this could only be Columba turtur Linnaeus, 1758 or one of its synonyms. In this case Turtur Garsault, 1764 would become a senior subjective synonym of Streptopelia Bonaparte, 1855 according to the current classification.
  If Turtur Boddaert, 1783 is to remain in stable use for this bird genus, Turtur Garsault, 1764 needs to be suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and of Homonymy. If only Streptopelia is to remain in stable use for this genus, it should be protected by suppressing Turtur Garsault, 1764 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

Vulpes Garsault, 1764, pl. 702 (Mammalia)
Appeared without species. Text volume: Garsault, 1765, p. 445. Garsault’s figure represents the red fox, Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, currently classified in the genus Vulpes Frisch, 1775 (type species Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758 fixed under the plenary power, Opinion 1129 (1982)). There are currently ten species classified in the genus Vulpes, the red fox being the only European species (Nowak, 1999, p. 636). Garsault (1764) used the name Vulpes in the same sense as Frisch (1775, interpreted in Opinion 1129 under the plenary power).
  The name Vulpes must be shifted to Garsault’s (1764) authorship (type species Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758 fixed under the plenary power). Vulpes as used by Frisch (1775, p. 15) must be considered as a subsequent use of Vulpes Garsault, 1764. Authorship and year of Vulpes on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, given as Frisch, 1775, is incorrect.

General nomenclatural evaluation
Four generic names have currently been used in combination with Geoffroy’s erroneous 1767 authorship: Ichthyocolla, Lucius, Merlangius and Trutta. These names must be shifted to Garsault, 1764 without any further consequences. Ichthyocolla however, has to be considered as a nomen dubium, and Lucius has no relevance as a junior objective synonym of Esox Linnaeus, 1758.
  Sixteen names established by Garsault (1764) should be used, including Merlangius and Trutta. This applies to the names Alosa Garsault, 1764 (hitherto known as Alosa Linck, 1790), Anguilla Garsault, 1764 (hitherto known as AnguillaSchrank, 1798), Asinus Garsault, 1764 (up to now Gray, 1824), Bufo Garsault, 1764 (up to now Laurenti, 1768), Castor canadensis Garsault, 1764 (up to now Kuhl, 1820), Coturnix Garsault, 1764 (up to now Bonnaterre, 1790), Cygnus Garsault, 1764 (up to now Bechstein, 1803), Martes Garsault, 1764 (up to now Pinel, 1792), Rupicapra Garsault, 1764 (up to now Blainville, 1816), Salamandra Garsault, 1764 (up to now Laurenti, 1768), Scincus Garsault, 1764 (up to now Laurenti, 1768), Tinca Garsault, 1764 (up to now Cuvier, 1816), Vipera Garsault, 1764 (up to now Laurenti, 1768) and Vulpes Garsault, 1764 (up to now Frisch, 1775). Accordingly, Antalis Adams & Adams, 1854 should be attributed to Herrmannsen, 1846.
  In addition to these names Garsault established eleven junior synonyms of genera that had already been established by Linnaeus (1758). These were Antalium Garsault, 1764 (of Dentalium Linnaeus, 1758), Cetus (of Physeter), Cynos (of Hippopotamus), Harengus (of Clupea), Lucius (of Esox), Lupus (of Canis), Manati (of Trichechus), Merula (of Turdus), Monoceros (of Monodon) and Trutta (of Salmo). The cod fish Asellus Garsault, 1764 is a junior homonym of the crustacean Asellus Geoffroy, 1762, and a junior subjective synonym of Gadus Linnaeus, 1758.
  Rulings from the Commission are needed if the following nine names should remain in current usage: Alces Gray, 1821, Gazella Blainville, 1816, Astraea [Röding], 1798, Pinctada [Röding], 1798, Panthera Oken, 1816, Potamon fluviatilis (Herbst, 1785), Testudo graeca terrestris Forskål, 1775, Turtur Boddaert, 1783, Streptopelia Bonaparte, 1855.
  As long as Garsault’s senior synonyms have not been used, Article 23.9 of the Code can be applied to maintain stable use of Astraea rugosa (Linneaus, 1767), Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777, Catharus ustulatus (Nuttall, 1840), Podacris muralis (Laurenti, 1768), Hyla Laurenti, 1768 and Natrix Laurenti, 1768.
  Since Garsault’s (1764, 1765, 1767) zoological works meet the requirements of the Code and are consistently binominal, it would not be justified to officially reject them, and we would not recommend such an action. If rejected, then at least Merlangius and Trutta would have to be ruled by the Commission under the plenary power to be available despite having been published in a rejected work. We recommend suppression of only those names that would threaten the stability of currently widely used names.
  Lastly, the dramatic impact of the rediscovery of this work involving many well-known and important zoological names emphasises the need to cite, if possible, the author of a work on any occasion (names of taxa, bibliographical references) in the form it was printed on the title page of the corresponding work. The use of standardised names of zoological authors and initials of first names is very problematic and should be avoided. ‘E.L.’ was incorrectly added to Geoffroy by authors who did not verify the true identity and only assumed that E.L. Geoffroy was meant – others did not know this but relied for more than a century on this information. If only ‘Geoffroy’ had been cited, zoologists would have searched with much greater zeal for works published by authors with this name, and might have found E.F. Geoffroy and the true source, Garsault, earlier. In one case in a fish database which works semiautomatically with self-made standardised names of authors, Geoffroy was finally replaced by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, because only Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was known as an author for fishes. Any deviation from the original spelling of the author increases the distance from the original source of information and can finally lead to a complete disconnection. Garsault’s example has shown that this can create serious problems even after more than 200 years.

Acknowledgements
We thank N. Bogutskaya, W. Eschmeyer, B. Sahlmann, V. Wiese and R. Willmann for determinations of doubtful species, helpful comments and corrections. The digitisation of the zoological works and the establishment of the AnimalBase database, which led to the discovery of the cases presented here, were financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

References
Arnault de Nobleville, L.D. de & Salerne, F. 1756–1757. Suite de la matière médicale de M. Geoffroy. Règne animal. Desaint & Saillant, Cavelier, Le Prieur, Paris. (5 volumes).
Blainville, H. de. 1816. Sur plusieurs espèces d’animaux mammifères, de l’ordre des ruminans. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 8: 73–82.
Bogutskaya, N.G. & Naseka, A.M. 2004. Katalog beschelyustnykh i ryb presnykh i solonovatykh vod Rossii s nomenklaturnymi i taksonomicheskimi kommentariyami. 389 pp. Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk, Moskva.
Bonanno, P. 1684. Recreatio mentis, et ocvli in obseruatione animalium testaceorum curiosis naturæ inspectoribus. 15, 270, 10 pp., 15 pls., Fig. (1) 1–20, Fig. (2) 1–100, Fig. (3) 1–407, 5 pls. Varesij, Romæ.
Bonnaterre, P.J. & Vieillot, L.P. 1823. Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois règnes de la nature. Ornithologie. Première partie. [3], xcvij, 402 pp. Agasse, Paris.
Brehm, C.L. 1829. Der Löwe keine Katze. Isis von Oken, 22(6): 636–639.
Brisson, M.J. 1760. Ornithologie ou méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés. (...) Tome 1. xxiv, 526, lxxiij pp., XXXVII pls. Bauche, Paris.
Desmarest, E. 1856. Reptiles et poissons. Pp. 1–360, 1–62, pls. 1–48 in Chenu, J.G., Encyclopédie d’histoire naturelle; ou, Traité complet de cette science d’après les travaux des naturalistes les plus éminents de toutes les époques (...). Tome 19.
Engelmann, W. 1846. Bibliotheca historico-naturalis. Verzeichniss der Bücher über Naturgeschichte welche in Deutschland, Scandinavien, Holland, England, Frankreich, Italien und Spanien in den Jahren 1700–1846 erschienen sind. Erster Band. VIII, 786 pp. Engelmann, Klincksieck; Leipzig, Paris.
Fermin, P. 1765. Histoire naturelle de la Hollande Equinoxiale ou déscription des animaux, plantes, fruits, et autres curiosités naturelles, qui se trouvent dans la colonie de Surinam; avec leurs noms différents, tant François, que Latins, Hollandois, Indiens & Négre-Anglois. XII,239, 2 pp. Magérus, Amsterdam.
Frisch, J.L. 1775. Das Natur-System der vierfüßigen Thiere in Tabellen, darinnen alle Ordnungen, Geschlechte und Arten, nicht nur mit bestimmenden Benennungen, sondern beygesetzten unterscheidenden Kennzeichen angezeigt werden zum Nutzen der erwachsenen Schuljugend. 6, 30, 4 pp. Günther, Glogau.
Garsault, F.A.P. de. 1741. Le nouveau parfait maréchal, ou la connaissance générale et universelle du cheval, divisé en six traitez. 1. De sa construction; 2. Du haras 3. De l’écuyer & du harnois; 4. Du chirurgien & des opérations; 5. Du maréchal ferrant; 6. De l’apoticaire, ou des remèdes. Avec un dictionnaire des termes de cavalerie. 34, 512, CXXVII pp. Neaulme, La Haye.
Garsault, F.A.P. de. 1746. Le nouveau parfait maréchal, ou la connoissance générale et universelle du cheval, divisé en sept traités. (2nd edition). 641 pp. Huart, Paris.
Garsault, F.A.P. de. 1756. Traité des voitures, pour servir de supplément au nouveau parfait maréchal. Avec la construction d’une Berline nouvelle, nommée l’inversable. 4, 115 pp.
Durant, Paris.
Garsault, F.A.P. de. [1764]. Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine, décrits dans la Matière Médicale de Mr. Geoffroy médecin, dessinés d’après nature. Gravés par Mrs. Defehrt, Prevost, Duflos, Martinet &c. Niquet scrip. [Tome 5]. [4], index 20 pp., pls. 644–729. Paris.
Garsault, F.A.P. de. 1765. Explication abrégée de 719 plantes, tant étrangères, que de nos climats; & de 134 animaux, en 730 planches, gravées en taille-douce, sur les dessins de M. de Garsault, & mises au jour en Juin 1764, suivant l’ordre du livre intitulé, Matière Médicale de M. Géoffroy: Ouvrage utile à toutes matières médicales. [1], 472 pp. [Paris].
Garsault, F.A.P. de. 1767. Description, vertus et usages de sept cents dix-neuf plantes, tant étrangeres que de nos climats; et de cent trente-quatre animaux, en sept cents trente planches, gravées en taille-douce, sur les dessins d’après nature, de M. de Garsault, par MM. de Fehrt, Prevost, Duflos, Martinet, &c. Et rangées suivant l’ordre du livre intitulé Matière Médicale de M. Geoffroy. xiv, [2], 472, 20 pp. Didot, Paris.
Geoffroy, E.F. 1741. Tractatus de materia medica, sive de medicamentorum simplicium historia virtute, delectu & usu. Tomus primus. De fossilibus. [2], 197, [2], 318, 6 pp. Desaint & Saillant, Parisiis.
Geoffroy, E.F. 1741. Tractatus de materia medica, sive de medicamentorum simplicium historia virtute, delectu & usu. Tomus secundus. De vegetabilibus exoticis. [2], 794, 7 pp. Desaint & Saillant, Parisiis.
Geoffroy, E.F. 1741. Tractatus de materia medica, sive de medicamentorum simplicium historia virtute, delectu & usu. Tomus tertius. De vegetabilibus indigenis. [2], 836 pp. Desaint & Saillant, Parisiis.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1767. Traité sommaire des coquilles, tant fluviatiles que terrestres, qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris. ix, [3], 143 pp. Musier, Paris.
Hagen, H.A. 1862. Bibliotheca entomologica. Die Litteratur über das ganze Gebiet der Entomologie bis zum Jahre 1862. Erster Band. A-M. XII, 566 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig.
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia. Nomina subgenerum, generum, familiarum, tribuum, ordinum, classium; adjectis auctoribus, temporibus, locis systematicis atque literariis, etymis, synonymis. Praetermittuntur Cirripedia, Tunicata et Rhizopoda. Vol. I. XXVII, 637 pp. Fischer, Cassellis.
Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1883. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 16: i–liv, 1–1018.
Laurenti, J.N. 1768. Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin reptilium emendatam cum experimentis circa venena et antidota reptilium Austriacorum. 2, 214, 1 pp., V pls. Trattnern, Viennæ.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533–1327. Salvii, Holmiae.
Martini, F.H.W. 1767. Des Herrn Geoffroy kurze Abhandlung von den Conchylien welche um Paris sowohl auf dem Lande, als in süßen Wassern gefunden werden. Aus dem Französischen übersezt und mit einigen erläuternden Zusätzen vermehrt. 13, VI, 133, 16 pp., 1 pl., 1 table.Raspe, Nürnberg.
McNeill, J. 2006. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. xviii, 568 pp. Gantner; Rugell (Liechtenstein).
Montfort, D. de. 1810. Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des coquilles; (...). Coquilles univalves, non cloisonnées. Tome second. 3, 676 pp. Schoell, Paris.
Müller, F.H. 1791. Um Hús-blas. Rit þeß Islenzka Lærdoms-Lista Felags, 10: 186–192.
Neave, S.A. 1939–1940. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera inzoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935. In four volumes. Vol. I–IV. Zoological Society, London.
Nissen, C. 1966. Die botanische Buchillustration. Ihre Geschichte und Bibliographie. Zweite Auflage. Durchgesehener und verbesserter Abdruck der zweibändigen Erstauflage, ergänzt durch ein Supplement. X, [1], 264, [3], 316, 97 pp. Hiersemann, Stuttgart.
Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the world. Volume I. li, 836 pp., pp. lv–lxx. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore, London.
Ogilby, W. 1837. A view pointing out the characters to which the most importance should be attached in establishing generic distinctions among the Ruminantia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 4: 131–139. [1836]
Pálsyni, S. 1789. Um Húsblas eda Sundmagalim sem lítill vidbætir Lector Olafs Olafsonar ritlíngs um límtegundir (Fel. r. 6. Bind.). Rit þeß Islenzka Lærdoms-Lista Felags, 9: 160–176.
Percheron, A. 1837. Bibliographie entomologique, comprenant l’indication par ordre alphabétique de noms d’auteurs, (...). Tome premier. XII, 326 pp. Baillière; Paris, Londres.
Pilsbry, H.A. & Sharp, B. 1897–1898. Manual of Conchology; structural and systematic. With illustrations of the species. Vol. XVII. Scaphopoda. Aplacophora. Index to genera and subgenera, volumes II to XVII. xxxii, 348 pp., 48 pls. Philadelphia.
Schrank, F. von Paula. 1798. Favna Boica. Durchgedachte Geschichte der in Baiern einheimischen und zahmen Thiere. Erster Band. XII, 720 pp., 1 pl. Stein, Nürnberg.
Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index animalium sive index nominum quae ab a.d. MDCCLVIII generibus et speciebus animalium imposita sunt. Sectio prima a kalendis Ianuariis, MDCCLVIII usque ad finem Decembris, MDCCC. lix, 1195 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cantabrigae.
Stafleu, F.A. & Cowan, R.S. 1976. Taxonomic literature. A selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types. Volume I: A-G. Second edition. XL, 1136 pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema; Utrecht.
Stafleu, F.A. & Cowan, R.S. 1979. Taxonomic literature. A selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types. Volume II: H-Le. Second edition. XVIII, 991 pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Junk; Utrecht, The Hague.
Steiner, G. & Kabat, A.R. 2004. Catalog of species-group names of recent and fossil Scaphopoda (Mollusca). Zoosystema, 26(4): 549–726.
Stejneger, L.H. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 58: I–XX, 1–577.
Suter, H. 1913. Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca. xxiiii, [1], 1120 pp., 72 pls. Mackay, Wellington.
Townsend, A.C. 1956. Chartulae bibliographicae. I. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 3(3): 134.
Welter-Schultes, F.W., Klug, R. & Lutze, A. 2008. Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine, a rare work published by F.A.P. de Garsault in 1764. Archives of Natural History, 35(1): 118–127.

.