Zapałowicz’s Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus: Clarification of publication dates for nomenclatural purposes and bibliographic notes

Abstract Work on the catalogue of type specimens of vascular plants deposited in the KRAM herbarium has highlighted uncertainties and errors in references to place of valid publication of numerous taxa described by Hugo Zapałowicz in his Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus – Krytyczny przegląd roślinności Galicyi (1904–1914). Zapałowicz published his work in an excerpt series, a serial publication and a multi-volume book, with much duplication amongst these three different forms. Despite the importance of this work, no studies have clarified the dates of publication of its various parts, as relevant to the nomenclature of numerous new taxa of Central European vascular plants described therein: 94 species and hybrids, 10 subspecies and more than 2000 other infraspecific taxa. Here, the publication dates of the component parts of Zapałowicz’s work are clarified and discussed. Archival sources that made it possible to determine publication dates of these works are described in detail.


Introduction
An eminent Polish naturalist, Hugo Zapałowicz ( Fig. 1), was born on 15 November 1852 in Laibach (now Ljubljana in Slovenia) and died 20 November 1917 in Perovsk (now Kyzylorda in Kazakhstan). After graduating from high school, Zapałowicz studied law and in 1876 was awarded a doctorate at the Faculty of Law, Jagiellonian University, Kraków. Following this, Zapałowicz worked as a military lawyer, but botany, taken up early in his life, was his major passion. In 1894, Zapałowicz became a Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków (AAS, since 1920: Polish AAS -PAAS; in Polish, respectively: Akademia Umiejętności -AU, Polska Akademia Umiejętności -PAU) and, for a long time, had been co-operating with the Museum of the Physiographic Commission of the AAS, studying its abundant herbarium. Zapałowicz retired in 1905, after a 35 years law career, but returned to the military during World War I. Imprisoned by Russian troops, he died as a prisoner of war. Throughout his life, Zapałowicz devoted all of his leisure time to investigating the flora of the Carpathian Mountains and Galicia (today mostly the territory of western Ukraine and south-eastern Poland, Eastern Europe) (Rouppert 1918;Hryniewiecki 1953;Zdebska 1978Zdebska -1979Zdebski 1978Zdebski -1979Majkowska 2006).
In 1904, Zapałowicz began publishing his most distinguished work in the field of botany, titled Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus -Krytyczny przegląd roślinności Galicyi (1904Galicyi ( −1914 [= A critical review of the flora of Galicia] (hereafter, the Conspectus). The Conspectus was a multipart work that appeared over 11 years and was published in three forms: as an excerpt series, a serial publication and a multi-volume book. The excerpts were written in French, whereas the serial and books were written in Polish; in all three forms, Latin was used for species description and taxonomic remarks. Although unfinished, the Conspectus is a monumental work that provided the first (but incomplete) enumeration of the vascular plants (1222 species in 52 families, including addenda) of Galicia, including descriptions of new taxa (49 species, 50 hybrids, 10 subspecies and more than 2000 other infraspecific taxa). Entries in the Conspectus include accepted names, selected synonyms (basionyms where appropriate), detailed Latin descriptions of most taxa, taxonomic notes, localities of herbarium specimens studied and regional distributions; taxonomic keys were not included. The Conspectus was issued as a book in three volumes; a projected 4 th volume was never published. Volume 1 covers pteridophytes, monocotyledons and gymnosperms (Polypodiaceae-Coniferae) and Volumes 2 and 3 cover dicotyledons, including families from Betulaceae to Caryophyllaceae. Content that would have appeared in Volume 4 was published only in serial form, covering dicotyledon families from Papaveraceae to Violaceae. The work was based almost entirely on the herbarium collection housed at the Museum of the Physiographic Commission of the AAS in Kraków, including the author's own collection (Zapałowicz , 1906b, currently housed at the KRAM herbarium (with some duplicates at KRA).
We identified 65 different publication events related to the Conspectus, including numerous duplicate nomenclaturally-redundant publications. These events comprise a 30 part excerpt series (representing 32 publication events), a 30 part serial publication and a three volume book. All but one of them were published under the same Polish title. Stafleu and Cowan (1988) listed the Conspectus (no. 18.599) under its alterna-tive Latin title, even though the Latin title was included in only 33 of the publication events (for details see Appendix I).
The 30 individual parts that make up the Conspectus were published separately in a Polish journal, Rozprawy Wydziału Matematyczno-Przyrodniczego Akademii Umiejętności, Dział B. Nauki Biologiczne (Seria 3) (hereafter, the Rozprawy). The content of the first 21 parts of the Rozprawy was brought together and re-published in a three volume book, along with Addenda, Corrigenda and Index generum sections at the end of each volume. The 30 excerpts (selections) were published in advance of the serial publications and the books in an international monthly journal, Bulletin International de l'Académie des Sciences de Cracovie: Classe des Sciences Mathématiques et Naturelles (Vols. 1904(Vols. -1909 and its successor, Bulletin International de l'Académie des Sciences de Cracovie: Classe des Sciences Mathématiques et Naturelles; Série B. Sciences Naturelles (Vols. 1910(Vols. -1914) (hereafter, the Bulletin). Parts 1 to 21 of the Conspectus were published in the Rozprawy and in book form and excerpts from them were published in the Bulletin. Parts 22 to 30 were published in the Rozprawy and excerpts from them were published in the Bulletin.
Zapałowicz's names in the Conspectus were usually published twice and sometimes even three times, but none of these duplicate or triplicate publications indicated that the name had already been published elsewhere. A few of Zapałowicz's names, for example, Carex × bogdanensis, C. × paczoskii and C. × raciborskii, were published exclusively in the Addenda sections at the end of book volumes. Zapałowicz Duplicate (or multiple) publication, in whole or in part, is problematic in the context of botanical nomenclature. The verification of the dates of Zapałowicz's publications is critical because of the principle of priority: the earliest place and date of valid publication of a new name is the correct one and later redundant publication(s) of names has(ve) no nomenclatural standing. Therefore, we undertook ancillary bibliographic studies to clarify the correct dates of publication for each of Zapałowicz's works. As an addition to Taxonomic Literature II (Stafleu and Cowan 1988) records, the dates of publication of the component parts of Zapałowicz's Conspectus are here confirmed or revised. We also verified the data available in IPNI related to Zapałowicz's names of species and nothospecies (IPNI 2019), including verification of a few names published outside the Conspectus.
We follow journal abbreviations provided in the database BPH Online (Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation 2019). If a title is given in two languages, the second title is preceded by a dash (-). Titles (generally English translations) in square brackets and preceded by the equals sign [=] were determined by us, not the original author. For the Polish "zeszyt" of the Rozprawy, we generally use the English equivalent "fascicle" and, for the French "livraison" of the Bulletin, we use "issue".

Determination of publication dates
A multilingual international journal, the Bulletin and a Polish-language journal, the Rozprawy, were edited by the AAS and both consisted of papers presented at the meetings of the Class of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the AAS. We first searched for explicit evidence about the publication dates (imprint date) of these journals within them. In the Bulletin, the publication date of each issue, precisely to the day, is specified in the work itself. The Rozprawy volumes, apart from the imprint date at the foot of the title page, labelled each paper according to the date of presentation at the AAS meeting (Suppl. material 1: Table S1). These presentation dates cannot be accepted as publication dates according to Article 31.1 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018;Turland 2019). In such situations, it becomes necessary to seek additional information to determine the dates of effective publication. The actual years of publication of the Rozprawy volumes may vary from the imprint years at the foot of the title page, since books published in December (and sometimes even November) commonly bear the imprint of the following year and books published in January or February occasionally bear the imprint of the preceding year.

External sources
In cases where the original work either does not provide information on the precise date of publication or the date it bears is suspected of being inaccurate, we pursued additional evidence, external to the work itself. The newly-published editions of the AAS were recorded and advertised by its Bibliographic Commission in the bibliographic indexes published in two journals. The monthly reports were listed in the section enti-  Gruca 1993). Therefore, we searched their bookselling catalogues, reference copies of which are stored in the collection Documents of Everyday Life of the Jagiellonian Library.
Finally, dates of receipt or accession of the published journal by institutions, societies or museums provide absolute evidence of the latest date that a particular work was published. We searched the accession books of the Jagiellonian Library for dates of receipt of the Rozprawy in years 1904-1914. We also located such information for the Tromsø Museum library, which published similar reports in the journal Tromsø Museum Aarsberetning [= Tromsø Museum Reports]. Beginning in 1910, the journal was divided into two series; botany was included in Série B. Sciences Naturelles -Reihe B. Biologische Wissenschaften. These two series consisted of research summaries (some of them up to two signatures long) that were intended for an international audience. The Bulletin was an important platform for Polish scientists for quick dissemination of their scientific research results abroad (Stachowska 1973). In the case of Zapałowicz, a subset of his nomenclatural and taxonomic novelties was excerpted from the Rozprawy prior to publication and printed in the Bulletin.
The Bulletin used the years of the covered AAS meetings as volume numbers and its issues were numbered starting at one in each year. In all cases except Volume 1907, published in 1907, the volume number (year) preceded the year of its completion (e.g. Volume 1905 was issued in 1906). Each volume consisted of papers presented during a calendar year at ten monthly meetings of the Class of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the AAS. Consequently, its volumes each comprised ten issues, appearing after every meeting and each issue comprised papers presented there. Beginning in 1910, the issues were printed in 16-page signatures (in octavo), with total pages per issue being multiples of 16 (16, 32, 48 etc.). Given this, the published papers could be divided between two adjacent signatures that were published separately. In issues of volumes 1904 to 1909, the date is given on the last text page of the issue, whereas in issues of volumes from 1910 to 1914, the date is given on the verso of the front wrapper. In the Bulletin, the title-page date of the volume represents the data of completion of the multipart work, whereas the individual parts were published on earlier dates. In the Bulletin, date research is easiest with sets in which the issue wrappers were preserved by the binders, either bound in place or sometimes at the end of a volume. However, the wrappers were often discarded when a volume was complete and sent for binding. In many libraries, no wrappers have been preserved, for example, in the Library of the PAAS and PAS and in the Jagiellonian Library. In the library of the W. Szafer Institute of Botany PAS, however, the wrappers are bound at the end of a volume and some unbound issues in the original wrappers are also housed there. Copies available online in the Biodiversity Heritage Library include the complete issue wrappers bound in place.
The 30 excerpts from Zapałowicz's work, written in French and Latin, were issued in the Bulletin in years 1904 (Vol. 1904, Issue 4) to 1914 (Vol. 1914, Issue 4B). Two parts (23 and 27) were further subdivided between two adjacent signatures and published separately (for details see Suppl. material 1: Table S1). The first part was titled Uwagi krytyczne nad roślinnością Galicyi -Remarques critiques sur la flore de la Galicie, while the following ones, from the second to the thirtieth, were titled Krytyczny przegląd roślinności Galicyi -Revue critique de la flore de la Galicie, with accompanying part numbers in Roman numerals (see Appendix I).
In the excerpts, Zapałowicz published 72 new names of species and nothospecies and more than 80 names of infraspecific taxa, accompanied almost always by Latin descriptions and/or diagnoses. In one case, Gypsophila paniculata L. subsp. lithuanica Zapał., there is only a short diagnosis in French but, because the publication dates to before 1935, this French diagnosis does not preclude valid publication of that name. For a list of taxa published in the excerpts, see Suppl. material 1: Table S1. Zapałowicz's work published in the Bulletin preceded its publication in serial form in the Rozprawy (see below) and, therefore, publication dates of names that first appeared in the Bulletin are the relevant ones for nomenclatural purposes.  Table S2). Information for subscribers provided by the journal itself, on the preserved wrappers of some full year's volumes, i.e. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 6B (see Fig. 2), 7B and 8B, on their outside back covers, indicated that its volumes would be published in fascicles. The number of these fascicles was never determined, suggesting it varied from one year to another. This information is absent on the wrappers from Volume 12B onwards, which suggests that this practice had been abandoned. Moreover, on these wrappers, the contents of the preceding volumes were listed, followed by the content of the current volume (see Fig. 2), where sometimes division into fascicles was indicated. In Volume 8B, no information on its division into fascicles is presented on its outside back cover. The information about division into fascicles might also have been determined from the individual covers (fascicle wrappers) of the relevant separate fascicles, but few of them have survived.

Rozprawy Wydziału
Although the Rozprawy was, at least in several years, published and sent to subscribers in fascicles, the basic sale unit was the journal volume, one per year. After a volume had been completed, it was no longer available in fascicles. The paperback or hardcover copies from the period 1904-1914, to which we had access, do not contain any information that allows recognition of their division into fascicles and their arrangement (except in part volumes 7B and 8B -see Suppl. material 3: Table S3). As there was no fixed schedule for fascicle publication, their frequency of publication is unknown. Our library research showed that some libraries probably received complete volumes of this journal, rather than individual fascicles, because we found only the original paperback volume wrappers in those collections. For example, the library of the W. Szafer Institute of Botany PAS has several volumes of the Rozprawy in the original wrappers (Fig. 2) and the British Library houses volumes of the Rozprawy with wrappers bound at the end of volumes. Thus, the fascicle compositions and their exact dates of publication are difficult to establish with confidence. The only date is the year (imprint year) provided at the foot of the title page of the complete year volume.
An annotated bibliography of literature relating to botany published by the AAS and PAAS was compiled by Köhler (2004 Table S2). Therefore, in the case of this volume, the year provided at its title page is reliable. Wacławska-Ćwiertnia and Mitka (2016) located a copy of Volume 8B at the Jagiellonian Library (ref. no. 284061/III, not 28061/III as given in their paper). This copy of Volume 8B is the only one of these published in 1904-1914 that preserves the original front wrappers (partly damaged) of Fascicles 1 and 3 (see fig. 4 in Paszko et al. 2020). However, no precise (day) dates are provided on these two fascicles; they are dated only 1908 and 1909, respectively. According to the contents listed on its wrapper, Fascicle 1 included eight papers, amongst them Parts 12 and 13 of the Conspectus (Zapałowicz 1909a, b). Volume 2 of the book version of the Conspectus (Zapałowicz 1908; see below), which comprises the text of these two parts, also bears the imprint year 1908. As none of this information clarifies which source was published first, Wacławska-Ćwiertnia and Mitka (2016) searched the 1908 bill book of the Jagiellonian University Printing House (ref. code DUJ 188). They concluded, based on review of three printers' receipts from 1908, that three fascicles of Volume 8B of the Rozprawy were published in 1908. The exact date of these fascicles notwithstanding, Paszko et al. (2020) confirmed the order in which the two publications in question had been distributed. They traced information confirming that Fascicle 1 of Volume 8B of the Rozprawy, as defined above, was available for sale as early as July-August 1908 in the bookshop of Gebethner and Co. Publishing House, based on its publisher's catalogue (Świszczowski 1908a), which also provides the table of contents of this fascicle. Recommendation 31A of the ICN helps here, by advising that the date on which the publisher or publisher's agent delivers printed matter to one of the usual carriers for distribution to the public should be accepted as its date of effective publication (Turland et al. 2018;Turland 2019). Thus, the date of effective publication for Fascicle 1 of Volume 8B of the Rozprawy is July-August 1908. Based on the bibliographic information from the Spraw. AU, Volume 2 of the Conspectus was published in August-October 1908 and was available for sale at Gebethner and Co. in September-October 1908 (Świszczowski 1908b). Therefore, Paszko et al. (2020) confirmed that Parts 12 and 13 of the Conspectus were effectively published in the Rozprawy.
We have made efforts to determine the publication dates of other volumes of the Rozprawy, i.e. Vols. 4B−14B(1). Searches were conducted in several secondary sources (see Suppl. material 2: Table S2), that help determine true dates of publications of these volumes. The Spraw. AU is the best source of evidence for the publication dates of the complete volumes of the Rozprawy for nomenclatural purposes. We have uncovered considerable evidence that the issuing of volumes of the Rozprawy was often delayed. All complete volumes were published at the beginning of the following year (often in March, rarely later), except Volume 14B, which was published in two parts. We found that, in six cases, the imprint years for complete volumes of the Rozprawy (and thus the effective publication dates for several parts of the Conspectus published there) are not the true dates of publication in this journal; Volumes 4B, 6B, 7B, 11B, 12B and 13B bore the imprint of the preceding year. In most volumes of Rozprawy (4B, 5B, 6B−8B (in part) and 10B−14B), the date ranges from the Spraw. AU are indicated by us as the publication dates of these journal volumes (see Suppl. material 2: Table S2). The publication of some the volumes of the Rozprawy was announced in the Meeting Report section in the Spraw. AU (Vols. 11B−14B), but these dates fall within the period known from the Bibliographic section (see Appendix I and Suppl. material 2: Table S2).
We have been unable to find dated fascicle wrappers of the Rozprawy, except for Fascicles 1 and 3 of Volume 8B, mentioned above. We still have little knowledge of how the published fascicles of the Rozprawy were disseminated to subscribers. We found, as mentioned above, that some fascicles of the volumes of the Rozprawy (Vols. 6B−8B) were available for sale in the bookshop of Gebethner and Co. Publishing House, based on its publisher's catalogue (see Appendix I and Suppl. material 2: Table S2). We determined that Parts 5, 6, 7 (p.p.), 8−10, 12 and 13 of the Conspectus from the Rozprawy were available for readers in fascicles, prior to the whole appearing in print as a journal volume. Thus, the dates of effective publication for these parts are based on Gebethner and Co. catalogue (for details see Suppl. material 2: Table S2).
In a search for precise information regarding the dates of publication of the subsequent parts of the Conspectus published in the Rozprawy, we looked through bill books for years 1904-1914 of the Jagiellonian University Printing House (ref. codes DUJ 185−DUJ 193) (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3). We found that signatures were printed throughout the whole calendar year; however, the final ones were printed and postpress operations were carried out at the beginning of the following year (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3 for details).
We found that up to two months from the date of publication given in the Spraw. AU, the complete volumes of the Rozprawy were entered into the inventory of the Jagiellonian Library: Volume 5B on 19 November 1906, Volume 6B on 23 May 1907 and Volume 7B on 7 May 1908. For the Tromsø Museum, we obtained this type of information from the reports in the journal Tromsø Museum Aarsberetning available online, but these dates are later than those for the Jagiellonian Library. In both places, the complete volumes are indexed; however, the precise date (to the day) is limited to a short period of time; in the case of Jagiellonian Library, it covers only the years presented above. The receipt dates are the latest dates of possible publication, but they confirm the earlier dates given in the Spraw. AU (see Suppl. material 2: Table S2).

Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus -Krytyczny przegląd roślinności Galicyi (3 Vols) (1906-1911), publication in book form
Three volumes of the Conspectus were completed and issued in 1906, 1908 and 1911 (Zapałowicz 1906b(Zapałowicz , 1911b. The publication process of the fourth volume was interrupted by the outbreak of the World War I and it was never published (Köhler 2015). The first 21 parts of the Conspectus from the serial form in the Rozprawy were brought together and published in three volumes. They were reprinted (or preprinted in some cases) with pagination that differed from that used in the Rozprawy. The volumes are supplemented by Addenda, Corrigenda and Index generum sections at the end of each volume. The Addenda sections include omitted species with numbers, additional infraspecific forms, new names, a few new species descriptions and additional distribution data. Volume 1 covers Parts 1−7 and the Addenda and Corrigenda to Volume 1, Volume 2 covers Parts 8−13 and the Addenda and Corrigenda to Volumes 1 and 2 and Volume 3 covers Parts 14−21 and the Addenda and Corrigenda to Volumes 1, 2 and 3. We determined, based on bibliographic data available in the Spraw. AU, that the volumes of the Conspectus were already available for readers during the following periods: August-October 1906 (Volume 1), August-October 1908 (Volume 2) and November 1911 (Volume 3). The dates given in the publisher's catalogue of Gebethner and Co. Publishing House are the same or later (Świszczowski 1906, 1908b, 1912). From this, we conclude that the imprint dates at the foot of the title pages were pro-vided correctly in these three volumes. The Spraw. AU revealed precise dates of publication for Zapałowicz's books of the Conspectus (Suppl. material 4: Table S4).
Volume 4, which covers parts 22−30 along with further addenda, was not effectively published nor distributed widely. Two printed copies, both lacking covers and title pages, were traced by Köhler (2015), In the prefaces to Zapałowicz's books (Zapałowicz 1906b(Zapałowicz , 1911b, there are notes that each volume represents the collective reprint from the relevant volumes of the Rozprawy. This is almost always true with regard to their contents; however, we detected a small paragraph (11 text lines) related to Dianthus armeria L. var. dubius Zapał. (Zapałowicz 1911b: 109) that appeared in Volume 3, but is missing at the respective place in the Rozprawy (Zapałowicz 1911a: 682). This may suggest that the respective signatures in the Rozprawy and the book were printed simultaneously. Alternatively, the book signatures may have been printed sometimes even before those for the Rozprawy, which may explain why the text noted above is missing in the Rozprawy, even though the journal was supposed to be the original publication.
We paid special attention to "reprints" from the journal with possible earlier appearance dates than those of the Rozprawy. Our research revealed that more than half of the material in book form (Zapałowicz 1906b(Zapałowicz , 1911b) appeared earlier in serial form in the Rozprawy. This situation concerns 13 parts (i.e. Parts 1-3, 8-17) of the book, which we considered to be reprints. Seven parts appeared earlier in book form (i.e. Parts 5-7, 18-21) and these parts are considered by us to be original. The publication dates of Part 4 (Zapałowicz 1906a) are the same for both sources; we therefore recommend that both be cited for names published in Part 4 (for details, see Suppl. material 4: Table S4).
As mentioned above, some of Zapałowicz's names, supplementing those from serial form in the Rozprawy, were published exclusively at the ends of book volumes of the Conspectus in addenda to the current and the previously-issued volumes. These names must be cited from the relevant book volume of the Conspectus (Zapałowicz 1906b(Zapałowicz , 1911b.

Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus and other sources online
Zapałowicz's works are available for readers via the Polona website (polona.pl). The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) (www.biodiversitylibrary.org) has digitised several of the volumes of the Bulletin, together with the covers accompanying each issue. Other sources are available as follows: the Rozprawy in the Wielkopolska Digital Library (www.wbc.poznan.pl), the Spraw. AU in the Silesian Digital Library (www. sbc.org.pl), the journal Rocznik AU on the RCIN platform (rcin.org.pl) and Gebethner and Co. publisher's catalogue titled Katalog Nowych Książek [= Catalogue of New Books] in the Jagiellonian Digital Library (jbc.bj.uj.edu.pl/dlibra).

Updates to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) database
The IPNI database provides nomenclatural information (spelling, author, types and first place and date of publication) for the scientific names of vascular plants. However, not all information concerning Zapałowicz's names is accurate in its current version. Entries of Zapałowicz's names at species rank (including hybrids) in IPNI are corrected here and the hope is expressed that the current inventory may be useful for fixing them.
A search of names in IPNI brought to light more than one hundred plant names for species and hybrids described by Zapałowicz (IPNI 2019) (for details, see Table 1). Amongst these records, we have identified 14 duplicate IPNI entries that are records of the same names with two different bibliographic citations. They probably derived from more than one of the three original source databases (Index Kewensis, the Gray Card Index and the Australian Plant Names Index) that had been combined in the late 1990s to create IPNI (Croft et al. 1999). It seems that the deduplication process conducted by the IPNI team in early 2016 (Nic Lughadha et al. 2016) was not fully successful, especially in cases when we deal with multiple data sources for Zapałowicz's names. After our processing of the mentioned IPNI entries, we obtained 98 names at species rank (including hybrids). We have searched for their first place and date of publication. Two names, Rorippa × wimmeri Zapał. and Viola berdaui Zapał., omitted in IPNI, are added by us. One name, Viola × roxolanica attributed to Zapałowicz, must be deleted. This taxon was described by Błocki (Deutsche Bot. Monatsschr. 5: 147. 1887) at species rank, then Zapałowicz transferred it to a hybrid category. Therefore, it must be cited as Viola × roxolanica Błocki (pro sp.). In total, we obtained 99 names at species rank (including hybrids), attributed to Zapałowicz, including one combination (Rumex carpaticus (Zapał.) Zapał.). Most of these names, 94 out of 99, are attributed to the Conspectus. Corrections are here provided for more than 60% of the respective IPNI entries. We have checked their name spelling (four corrections), authorships (three corrections), associated bibliographical details (63 corrections) and journal names (or their abbreviations; for details, see Table 1).