11

© International Society for the History and Bibliography of Herpetology, ISHBHBibliotheca Herpetologica, Vol. 7(1): 12–16, 2007

The Versions of Cope’sBatrachia and Reptilia of Costa Rica

ROBERT W. MURPHY1, ARTHUR SMITH2 AND ANDRE NGO3

1Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: drbob@zoo.utoronto.ca

2Library, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: arthurs@rom.on.ca

3 Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: andre.ngo@utoronto.ca

REPRINT

12

© International Society for the History and Bibliography of Herpetology, ISHBHBibliotheca Herpetologica, Vol. 7(1): 12–16, 2007

Introduction

One of the best known and more colourful 19th

Century vertebrate zoologists, and NorthAmerica’s best known herpetologists, is Ed-ward Drinker Cope. With almost 1400 pub-lished papers (Frazer, 1902), his research pro-ductivity is astounding, and remains one of themost remarkable records of achievement in thehistory of biology. Cope published about 170papers on extant amphibians and reptiles (Adler,1989). His classic work, The Crocodilians, Liz-ards, and Snakes of North America, publishedin (Cope 1900), remains quite useful and issought after by every collector of herpetologi-cal literature. Fortunately, this monograph isneither rare nor particularly expensive. Hismonograph The Batrachia of North America(Cope 1889; reprinted 1963) is also a standardreference. In stark contrast, one of Cope’s leastknown, but extremely important monographsconcerns the herpetofauna of Costa Rica.

Cope’s monograph On the Batrachia and Rep-tilia of Costa Rica with Notes on the Herpetol-ogy and Ichthyology of Nicaragua and Peru isa truly rare, seminal contribution to herpeto-logical diversity. The publication is not listedunder Cope in the Catalogue of Books in theBritish Museum (Natural History) (1903-1915,1922-1940) or in Wood (1931), and not refer-enced by Haines (2000). The Zoological Recordlists the monograph as appearing in the Journalof the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-delphia in 1876. Owing to its rarity and impor-tance, the monograph was reprinted by A. E. B.O’Bíos (Costa Rica) in an edition of 1500copies.

Some controversy surrounds the publicationdate of this work. It is most frequently listed asbeing published in “1875 (1876)” (e.g., Frost,2004). Whereas the more common journal ver-sion is dated 1876 on the front wrapper, anextremely rare author’s “extract” is dated 1875.The controversy likely owes to the existence ofmultiple releases and publication dates.

Alternative versions of On theBatrachia and Reptilia of Costa Rica

Savage (2002) cites two journal versions ofCope’s memoir, one dated 1875 and the other1876. Indeed, there are two versions. One con-sists of the “letterpress” (author’s preprint) is-sue and the other the journal issue. The twoversions differ somewhat in composition andtext. The more common, journal version con-tains all of the papers in the issue, and not justArticle IV, Cope’s monograph on Costa Rica.The additional papers include Article V, Cope’sOn the Batrachia and Reptilia collected by Dr.John M. Bransford during the Nicaraguan Ca-nal Survey of 1874, Article VI, Cope’s Reporton reptiles brought by Professor James Ortonfrom the middle and upper Amazon and westernPeru, Article VII, Cope’s Note on the ichthyol-ogy of Lake Titicaca, and Article VIII, O.A.L.Mörch’s A descriptive catalogue of the Scalidaeof the West India Islands. In contrast, the letter-press version contains Cope’s monograph onCosta Rica even though the title reflects all ofhis contributions in this issue of the journal.Complete, the author’s “extract,” better referredto as a preprint, consists of two volumes issued16 months apart; the title page of one is labeled“Extracted from the Journal of the Academy of

The Versions of Cope’sBatrachia and Reptilia of Costa Rica

ROBERT W. MURPHY1, ARTHUR SMITH2 AND ANDRE NGO3

1Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: drbob@zoo.utoronto.ca

2Library, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: arthurs@rom.on.ca

3 Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada, e-mail: andre.ngo@utoronto.ca

13

Natural Sciences” and the other “Atlas.” Thepreprint, is dated “Philadelphia: 1875.” In thisvolume, the plate caption states, “PublishedNov. 26, 1875.” The journal version does notspecify a publication date other than “1876” onthe front wrapper; the publication date on theplate caption is not present. The Atlas volume ofCope’s letterpress version is dated “Philadel-phia, April, 1877,” although this may not beaccurate, as noted below. Some authorities usethe letterpress version to date Cope’s descrip-tions of new species (e.g., Savage 2002), andyet most other authorities use the journal date of1876, or the incorrect citation of the journal as“1875 (1876).”

The 1875 text volume of the author’s preprint iscomplete with the six plates. The “Explanationof the Plates (I-VI) ” refers to the plates that areactually numbered 23–28. In addition, the fig-ures are printed on a lighter weight paper thannormally used in the journal, and in the onecopy we have examined, the paper in letterpresscopy is acidic and now browned. This conditionis also true for the copy in the library of Dr.Kraig Adler (pers. com., 2006). We have exam-ined two copies of the 1877 letterpress Atlas andboth are void of the “Explanation of the Plates.”In both copies of the Atlas, a preface “Note” isof great significance as it provides specificdates of publication for the two versions:

“The letterpress of this memoir was pub-lished in an edition of fifty copies, Nov.26, 1875. The principal edition will ap-pear in the Journal of the Academy ofNatural Sciences of Philadelphia, whichhas not yet been issued, in consequenceof the delay in the completion of theplates. These are now published, com-pleting the separate memoir” [dated]March 20th, 1877.

The specific date for the journal issue differsfrom that on the front wrapper, which states“January 1876.” Given Cope’s documenta-tion, this date most likely the anticipated re-lease of the journal issue, and not the actual

date of release because the Journal of theAcademy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,Ser. 2, Vol. 8, Part 2 was not complete untilMarch 20, 1877. The journal issue could nothave been released in 1876, as stated on thefront wrapper. The release date of April, 1877(as stated on the Atlas letterpress volume) mayhave reflected an anticipated delay for theissue. However, the Note provides a specificdate, March 20, 1877, which should be used.Starting with Volume 9, the Journal of theAcademy of Natural Sciences gives precisedates for each author’s preprint. Unfortunately,Volume 8 bears only the following caveat atthe end of the list of contents: “Extra copiesprinted in advance for the authors.”

The plates in the Atlas and journal issues differfrom those in the preprint in three respects.First, the plates in the Atlas and journal areprinted on heavyweight paper, unlike the pre-print. Second, the three lines of caption at thebottom of Plate 23 are more widely spaced inthe preprint version compared to the Atlas andjournal versions. Third, the caption for Plate 26is justified more to the right in the journal andAtlas versions, compared to the preprint. Com-pared to the preprint, the similarities betweenthe journal’s and Atlas’ plates confirm that thejournal issue was not released until at leaseMarch 20, 1877.

Rarity of On the Batrachiaand Reptilia of Costa Rica…

The letterpress version was released in an edi-tion of only 50 copies before the journal issue.Although the species descriptions in the twoversions appear to be identical, except for dat-ing of the plates, the letterpress version formsthe basis for the descriptions of new species.The journal issue of 1877 (1876) is a laterreprint and, given minor differences in textbetween the two versions, authorities shoulddifferentiate between the letterpress and jour-nal issues. Cope’s species descriptions in themonograph on Costa Rica precisely date to 26Nov. 1875, not 1876 or 20 March 1877.

THE VERSIONS OF COPE’S BATRACHIA AND REPTILIA OF COSTA RICA

14

We have seen two identically bound sets of theletterpress Atlas. The half leather bindings havea sciber (thin leather) label on the front board(Fig. 1). The bindings of the atlases are identicalto that of the 1875 letterpress preprint in termsof leather, cloth, labels, size and decorativegilding. The identical bindings of the two at-lases suggest that the two volumes of the letter-press version were bound by a single binder anddistributed by Cope as bound books. The iden-tical style of the bindings could also suggestthat the two volumes were not initially distrib-uted until 1877. However, it is likely that thetwo volumes were issued separately. The 1875letterpress version is sewn on cords and is atraditional “tight back” binding. The leatherwas glued to the back of the book. In contrast,the Atlas is a case binding—the pages are heldin the hollow-back book by end sheets—and theplates were not sewn on cords or tape.

The extremely small edition of only 50 letter-press copies makes this one of the most rareherpetological publications. Indeed, a check ofthe catalogues of books in worldwide librarieslocates only 23 citations. Of these, eight librar-ies contain the letterpress preprint only, 11 havethe atlas only, and only four have the completeset, including Harvard University, The Univer-sity of Michigan, The University of Marylandand The Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-delphia. Neither the letterpress preprint nor theAtlas is catalogued in libraries outside of theU.S.A. and Canada. One additional copy of theauthor’s preprint also occurs in the MuseoNacional de Costa Rica. Two additional copiesof the preprint have been located in privatelibraries. Unfortunately, one of these is incom-plete, including missing the distinctive platesand the explanation of the plates that identifythe copy as being the preprint version. Oneadditional copy of the Atlas also occurs in aprivate library.

The 1967 O’Bíos reprint of Cope’s memoir onCosta Rica is a faithful reproduction of the 1875letterpress preprint presumably taken from thecopy in Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. How-

ever, the quarto reprint is reduced in size. Theoriginal letterpress preprint was printed as afolio and issued in a trimmed size of 255 mm x330 mm (10” x 13”). The reprint measures210mm x 265. In reprinting, the text was re-duced in size by only 5%, but the plates werereduced by 25%. Three of the six lithographswere pictured in Blum (1993: figs. 6.26-8).

Citation of On the Batrachiaand Reptilia of Costa Rica…

Cope’s 1875 advance (or preprint) edition, doesnot bear a statement of responsibility for theprinting and publication. Its title page offersonly a place of publication: Philadelphia, andthe date, 1875. This stands in contrast to the1877 (1876) version that appeared in the Jour-nal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, whereresponsibility for the publication is clearly es-tablished as residing with the Academy. Conse-quently, cataloguers have not named the Acad-emy of Natural Sciences as the body respon-sible for the 1875 edition, but rather, haveattributed such responsibility to the author. Start-ing with Volume 9, the Journal of the Academyof Natural Sciences takes responsibility forpublishing author’s preprints.

The 1875 letterpress edition has been treated asa preprint by many cataloguers. The ChicagoManual of Style, 15th ed. (2003) defines pre-prints as ‘unpublished material’ under the pro-visions of Rule 17.218. In adhering to thisprinciple, Cope’s 1875 preprint should not becited as part of the Journal of the Academy ofNatural Sciences. Following the example of theManual, the citation should read as cited below,in chronological order.

Cope, E.D. 1875. On the Batrachia and Rep-tilia of Costa Rica: with notes on the herpe-tology and ichthyology of Nicaragua andPeru. Philadelphia: Published by the au-thor. Pp. 93–154, plates 23–28.

Cope, E.D. 1877. The Batrachia and Reptiliaof Costa Rica. Atlas. Philadelphia: Pub-lished by the author. Pp. i, plates 23–28.

ROBERT W. MURPHY, ARTHUR SMITH AND ANDRE NGO

15

Cope, E.D. 1877. On the Batrachia and Rep-tilia of Costa Rica. Journal of the Academyof Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Ser. 2,8 (2) (1876):93–154, plates 23–28.

[Note: The citation notes the year of publi-cation as 1876 as it appears on the Jour-nal, to enable its retrieval from librariesand databases.]

Cope, E.D. [1875] 1967. On the Batrachia andReptilia of Costa Rica. A facsimile of thefirst ed. San José, Costa Rica: A. E. B.O’Bíos. Pp. 1–72, plates 23–28, (1).

Status of the new taxa described inOn the Batrachia and

Reptilia of Costa Rica…

Although the title of Cope (1975) states that themonograph deals with the herpetology and ich-thyology of Peru and Nicaragua, it does not.The preprint contained the first of four papersby Cope that were published in the journalversion. In the preprint, Cope described 37 newspecies, and four new genera. In the reprint,Villa (1967) notes that 36 of the 46 new speciesdescribed by Cope were still recognized, in-cluding Basiliscus plumifrons. Today, 25 of 37

new species described by Cope in this publica-tion are still recognized. In comparison, all ofthe four new genera described by Cope havebeen placed in synonymy.

Acknowledgments

Jay Savage and Kraig Adler provided valuablecomments on the manuscript.

References

Internet sources:Frost, D. R. (2004) Amphibian Species of the World:

an Online Reference. Version 3.0 (22 August2004). Electronic Database accessible at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural His-tory, New York, USA.

Printed sources:Adler, K. K. 1989. Herpetologists of the past. Pp. 5-

141 in K.K. Adler (ed.), Contributions to theHistory of Herpetology. Oxford, Ohio, Soc. StudyAmphib. Reptiles, 5.

British Museum (Natural History). 1903-1915;1922-1940. Catalogue of the Books, Manu-scripts, Maps and Drawings in the British Mu-seum (Natural History). Volumes I-V and

THE VERSIONS OF COPE’S BATRACHIA AND REPTILIA OF COSTA RICA

Fig. 1. The two preprint volumes of Cope’s The Batrachia and Reptilia of Costa Rica.The “extract” was published in 1875 and the Atlas was issued in 1877.

16

Supplement volumes VI-VIII. London, Trust-ees of the British Museum.

Blum, A. S. 1993. Picturing Nature - American Nine-teenth-Century Zoological Illustration, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton. xxxiv, 403.

Cope, E. D. 1875. On the Batrachia and Reptilia ofCosta Rica: with notes on the herpetology andichthyology of Nicaragua and Peru. Philadel-phia: Published by the author.

Cope, E. D. 1889. “The Batrachia of North America.”Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus., 34: 1–525.

Cope, E. D. 1889 (1963). The Batrachia of NorthAmerica. Eric Lundberg, Ashton. MD, 525pp., 86 plates.

Cope, E. D. 1900. The crocodilians, lizards, andsnakes of North America. Report U. S. Natl.Mus. for 1898: 153–1270.

Frazer, P. 1902. “Alphabetical cross-reference cata-logue of all the publications of the late EdwardDrinker Cope.” Memorias y Revistas 1899-1900:1–151, [1], ii.

Haines, S. 2000. Slithy Toves. Illustrated ClassicHerpetological Books at the University of Kan-sas in Pictures and Conversations, Society for theStudy of Amphibians and Reptiles. viii, 180, (4).

Savage, J. M. 2002. The Amphibians and Reptiles ofCosta Rica: A herpetofauna between two conti-nents, between two seas. Chicago, University ofChicago Press. 1056 p. (est.)

Villa, J. 1967. Preface. Pp. 5-7 in Batrachia andReptilia of Costa Rica. A. E. B. O’Bíos, SanJosé, Costa Rica.

Wood, C. A. 1931. An Introduction to the Literatureof Vertebrate Zoology. London, Oxford Univer-sity Press. xx, 644 p., color frontis.

ROBERT W. MURPHY, ARTHUR SMITH AND ANDRE NGO