A digital edition, compiled by John Jeffrey Dodd, The University of Iowa Libraries, 2005
Van Heurck, Henri. Synopsis des Diatomées de Belgique. Anvers, édité par l'auteur. 1880-1885.
The Atlas, with the exception of supplementary plates A, B, and C, was digitized from a copy owned by the editor of the digital edition. The supplementary plates, the Texte, and the Table alphabétique were digitized from the copy in The University of Iowa Libraries.
I wish to advance the opinion that the work was published exactly as stated, i.e. by the author. Van Heurck employed various local printers, whose names appear (in very small print) on the verso of the title pages for the volumes, but I do not believe, as many evidently do, that these printers were publishers in the sense of Elsevier and Wiley. For the sake of completeness, the printers were: for the Texte: Imprimerie Mtin Brouwers & Co Anvers, for the Atlas: Imprimerie J. Ducaju & cie à Anvers and for the Table alphabétique [index volume]: Imp. J. F. Dielthens à Anvers. The Synopsis was sold by subscription directly by Van Heurck, as can be seen in the addenda referred-to below.
The Synopsis consists of four parts: l'Atlas, le Texte, la Table alphabétique des nommes génériques et spécifiques et des synonymes contenus dans l'Atlas, and the Types du Synopsis (a set of microscope slides).
For purposes both bibliographic and taxonomic, I give the dates of publication of each of the part of this work, following VanLandingham (1967-1979, p.1080), with the exception of his note on the fascicles of the Atlas, of which there were six, not four. The Atlas appeared first and was published, as noted, in fascicles. The Table alphabétique followed, then the Texte and finally the Types. In comments made on this work I have abbreviated the titles of the main sections to "Atlas" and "Texte."
My own copy of the Atlas (which was the source of the material digitized) is unbound and contains the wrappers for four of the fascicles (I, IV, V, and VI). The dates shown below in square brackets are for parts fascicles that I do not have. The range of plates in each fascicle is inferred from information in the invoices for all six parts (originals of which I have digitized and include in the addenda).
Atlas, fascicule I. Raphidees, 1ere partie 1880 (Plates 1-10)
Atlas, fascicule II. Raphidees, 2eme partie [1881?] (Plates 11-30).
Atlas, fascicule III. Pseudo-raphidees, 1ere partie, [1882?] Plates 31-53.
Atlas, fascicule IV. Pseudo-raphidees, 2eme partie, 1881[i.e. 1882?]. Plates 54-77. 1881.
Atlas, fascicule V. Crypto-raphidees, 1ere partie, 1882. Plates 78-98
Atlas, fascicule VI. Crypto-raphidees, 2eme partie, 1883. Plates 99-138
Table alphabétique. 1884.
Atlas supplement [Plates A,B,C.] [1885].
Texte. 1885.
The type slides (Types) are outside the scope of the present project. I have a copy of the subscription order form, dated 1883. The Types were issued from 1885 until about 1887 in groups of 25 microscope slides, each group specially boxed and containing an explanatory pamphlet. The projected collection was to have comprised 600 slides. VanLandingham (p. 2959) indicates that series (boxes) I-XXII were issued. I believe that comparatively few of these slide sets were produced, and I am not certain how many, if any, of the extant sets are complete. The sets in the Farlow Herbarium (Harvard University) and in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (which I have had the pleasure of using) are largely so. For those who wish an account of the contents, may I refer to the Web page at Farlow Herbarium, Harvard University: [Catalog of Type Slides]
First, a very brief note about diatoms. The Bacillariophyta (diatoms) constitute a division of the plant kingdom. All are microscopic in size, consist of single cells, and have cell walls made of silica. They are the most important part of the base of the food chain in almost all waters of the earth and can be found, as well, in almost just about any place plants can grow.
The title of Van Heurck's Synopsis des Diatomées de Belgique is somewhat misleading, since the Atlas contains illustrations and descriptive remarks on species, both recent and fossil, from numerous locations around the world. Many of these illustrations constitute the descriptions of new species. A number of names in the captions indicate changes in the taxonomic position of the organisms involved. The Texte itself is devoted to the diatoms reported from Belgium and adjacent marine habitats.
Most of the illustrations in the Atlas are the work of Albert Grunow, 1826-1914. Van Heurck indicates, by an asterisk ( * ) in the caption, that Grunow made the drawing in question. In a few cases where the asterisk is omitted the plate itself is attributed to Grunow alone ( A. Grunow ad nat. delin.). The supplementary plates A, B, and C, are apparently Van Heurck's drawings alone ("H. Van Heurck ad nat. delin.). Where both men contributed drawings for a given plate, this is indicated by A. Grunow et H. Van Heurck ad nat. delin.
When a name given represents a new taxon or new combination of names, resolution of the question of authorship is significant for the proper citation of the taxon involved in order to avoid confusion. There are relatively few descriptive words for the morphologic features of diatoms, and many (if not most) have been accidentally re-used at least once for entirely different organisms. Under rules established in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature , only one of these identical names is legitimate -- generally the first to be (in technical terms) validly and effectively published -- but the other names exist in the literature. Failure to properly identify the author of a name makes matters worse. In earlier works, such as the Synopsis, the now current standard practice in this regard was not always followed or was not followed consistently. Van Heurck frequently omitted the name of the author or gave as apparently the sole author the name of the person making the current combination instead of referring also to the original describer.The greatest source of nomenclatural problems is the Atlas, for two reasons. The author of the captions frequently proposed alternative names for species without a preference. For example, in the caption to Pl. 86 (concerned with the genus Melosira, one finds the caption to fig. 24 given as M. (distans var.?) LAEVISSIMA Grun. This perhaps a proper expression of scientific uncertainty, but leaves one in doubt. Should one accept M. distans ? var. laevissima Grunow or M. laevissima Grunow, both names proposed in the same breath. This brings up the second problem: authorship of the caption in question. It is certain in this case that Grunow made the drawing. Who wrote the caption? If it was Van Heurck, then which name did Grunow actually propose? If it was Grunow, then which name should for the taxon should one accept as first intent?
One might argue, among others, for these possibilities:
Melosira distans ? var laevissima Grunow
Melosira laevissima Grunow
Melosira distans ? var. laevissima (Grunow) Van Heurck
In my index to the Synopsis I have generally chosen to use as the "correct" name, in this order, (1) the name which Van Heurck used in the Texte (which post-dates the Atlas); (2) the name which Van Heurck used in his Treatise on the Diatomaceae (1896); (3) the name by which the taxon was commonly known to later authors in the era before ultrastructural characters were used in redefining genera and species; (4) the name suggested as primary by typography in the caption; and (5) an arbitrary choice. The other names are given in my index in italics followed by the name chosen.
VanLandingham (1967-1979) was one of my main guides to proper nomenclatural use, though often he gave both variants without preference (especially when both were considered synonyms of yet another taxon and therefore, in a sense, were irrelevant.) I should note further than VanLandingham is much more specific about identifying the source of a name: he would use Grunow in Van Heurck for names in the Synopsis which he attributes to Grunow where I have simply used Grunow
I have been concerned here about the use of names not about systematics. To say that the species called A by Ehrenberg is the same as that called B by Grunow is a taxonomic observation that should not be made without reference to specimens of both, and properly only with reference to the specimens for which each name was originally proposed. To make such a statement without regard to observations of specimens is "arm-chair taxonomy" and is rightly to be condemned. When I have chosen a name among alternatives, generally both are indicated in the Synopsis as being applied to the same specimen at the same time. There are of course many other equivalences (true synonymies) found in Van Heurck that show up in my index in the same way as the purely nomenclatural ones. I emphasize that I have compiled an index to the Synopsis rather than a work on diatom systematics. I have not attempted to use the index to imply identities between organisms named, nor again to impose modern understandings about diatom taxonomy on an early work, else there would be many more Pinnularias and many fewer Naviculas.
I have been able to discover very little about Albert Grunow (1826-1914) and his background and profession other than that which can be gleaned from his scientific publications. He is sometimes considered the first professional diatomist and was called in as a consultant (for determination of diatoms found in oceanographic surveys) and as a collaborator.
Henri Ferdinand Van Heurck (1838-1909) was a professor of medical and economic botany and director of the botanical gardens in Antwerp. In matters of biological technology, he was what we would call today an "early adopter" and was a major influence in the development of microscopy. His status was such that he could command the attention of major players in optics, like Carl Zeiss and Ernst Abbe. He had at his disposal lenses for light microscopy that were capable of higher resolution than any that can be found today. His views on microscope design were translated by Ross and Company into an instrument that was known worldwide as the "Van Heurck Microscope."
Most of the diatomists of the period were either independently wealthy amateurs or had primary professions other than the study of diatoms: Per Theodor Cleve (1840-1905) was a chemist and discoverer of two of the chemical elements; Carl Adolf Agardh (1785-1859) was (among other things) a politician, theologian, and Bishop of Stockholm; the great diatomist Friedrich Traugott Kützing (1807-1893) was a teacher who taught for fifty years in Nordhausen, Germany (and is still honored there for that reason); Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg (1795-1876) spent part of his youth as an explorer; Robert Kaye Greville began work as a chemist and came to microscopy and the study of diatoms when his health no longer permitted working in the chemistry laboratory; Louis Alphonse de Brébisson was, among other occupations, a pioneer in the development of photography and photomicrography. These are but a few of the people whose names appear as authors of diatom species in the nineteenth century.
The enthusiasts for diatom study in the latter half of the nineteenth century were often derided as "diatom dotters" and "diatomanics" in their own day. As Van Heurck points out, however, it was this group of amateurs, with their passionate desire for lenses of ever increasing perfection (and their ability to pay for them!) that drove the development of the microscope. This was the "era of brass and glass" when the observation of nature, and particularly of the microscopic world, became a well-developed part of biology. If Van Heurck, Grunow, Ehrenberg, and Kützing could travel in time to the present, they would immediately see the potential of scanning electron microscopy and, I dare say, would be fascinated by molecular genetics if only they could find a way to apply it to the study of the little glass boxes called diatoms.
The process of aging has not been kind to the Synopsis, nor were some of the printing techniques quite up to the task of presenting this work. Every copy I have seen is in poor condition, with brittle and badly yellowed paper. The type faces used were varied and some of the "trendier" ones were not particularly readable, notably the condensed types in minuscule sizes. The method used for printing was the electrotype process, which seemed to work in some places but which did not seem to reproduce the original type well in others. The plates were produced by a method that involved photographic reduction of the original drawings. These, though the author does not say so, were made on graph paper -- there is abundant evidence of the original grid lines of that paper in a number of the drawings. I would hazard a guess that the slightly darker ground on which the illustrations were printed may have been chosen at least in part to mask the traces of the graph paper. The figure numbers on the plates were hand-drawn rather than set in type. Here and there one can see (in the originals) the traces of imperfectly erased penciled numbers next to the inked ones. The measuring scales are almost identical in defects from plate to plate and often appear to have been copies of a worn original. They are often somewhat skewed on the page and suffer from "generational noise." Straight lines, such as the borders on the plates and column dividers in the index, appear to have been hand drawn and imperfectly inked. It is fairly easy to imagine the appearance of the pasted-up originals, especially when one has done the same things on ones own plates. Different century, same tricks, same problems.
For all of these problems, there were comparatively few errors in typesetting. This must have been trying work for the printer, since so much of the work consists of scientific names and terms that would not have been in common use.
When I began work on this project, I thought that the yellowed paper would be the worst problem, but as things progressed, it became obvious that the original printing itself would provide more vexing challenges. There were numerous faint, blocked-up, and broken letters and significant noise in the drawings with fine detail. At first I blamed my scanning technique, but the scanner I used (HP Scanjet 3500c) had sufficient sharpness (even at 300 dpi) to pick up the grain of the paper (which itself proved to be a nuisance). When I looked at the originals under a 10 X lens, it became clear that the originals had the same defects noted in the scans.
I tried a number of variations on scanning technique to improve the results. Even at 1600 dpi there was not much improvement over 300 dpi. One-bit scans were nearly worthless , especially in the drawings, since the gray noise was converted to pure black. I settled on 300 dpi, continuous tone, 256 gray levels.
The scans thus made were too murky to be directly usable, so each one was processed in Adobe Photoshop Elements 2. Brightness and contrast settings could be adjusted (under inspection) to achieve part of the result. The rest was done at magnifications ranging from 200 to 400 % with eraser, soft brush, pencil, dodge, burn, smudge, and blur tools. Blocked-up letters were "cleaned" one at a time where the information was critical. Broken and faint letters were repaired or strengthened. The noise was removed from around each of the more than 3000 individual line drawings and then, very carefully, from within the drawings to the extent that this could be done safely. I used my best judgment as a diatomist to decide which marks in drawings were noise and which were intended as detail. When the work of cleaning was complete, which took anywhere from half an hour to six hours a page, I used the "burn" tool to darken the type and the lines of the drawings.
There is always a risk of error in any restorative operation of this sort. I can only say that I did my best to remove the noise without degrading the information. There is three categories in which changes were made deliberately. The first was in the plate borders which were redrawn throughout. The second was in the scales, which were also electronically "re-inked" so they could be read easily online. This is important for researchers since proper interpretation of the drawings often requires measuring them, and the dimensions of plates are at best relative online. The third was not restoring the slightly darker ground in the center of the plates. The scanned original of this background was lost during processing and in any case both degraded resolution and greatly increased file size. I rejected the idea of creating a replacement background color for the same reasons. I should note that there was considerable variation in the darkness of this central area. In a few cases it was only a slight difference in contrast. These instances were also those where the general yellowing was markedly less.
The only available commercial copy of this work in recent years has been in microfiche. I satisfied myself that the problems I encountered in my scans were not solved in that microform copy. The scales I just referred to are in many cases almost unreadable on the fiche.
In preparation of the material for the Web I made two sets of images, one as gif files at a magnification similar to that of the original, the other as jpeg files at several times this magnification. These jpeg files are very large (200-300K). For technical reasons the jpeg files are not available on the Web at the moment.
Van Heurck provided indexes to the Texte, an index to genera in the Atlas, and a set of detailed indexes issued as the Table alphabétique. In notes I have referred to the last named as the "index volume."
For use online I made a combined systematic (taxonomic) index based on all of Van Heurck's taxonomic indexes. It was possible in the electronic index to make corrections (both those noted by Van Heurck and those that I, and others, have found).
In a series of steps I took the scanned images of the index that had been cleaned as described above, cut them (electronically) into columns, ran OCR (via OmniPage Pro 12), hand corrected the OCR, and saved the files as plain text. The ASCII files were then merged, sorted, proofed and de-duped in Microsoft Word. The clean copy was saved as a text file and imported into Microsoft Excel. This spreadsheet was variously sorted and checked to ensure that all species found in both the Texte and the Atlas were accounted for, and especially that every drawing was accounted for. Columns containing html tags and related code were added. The completed spreadsheet was copied and pasted into Notepad to strip off any hidden Excel formatting that may have been copied. The plain text in Notepad was re-copied and pasted into Microsoft Word. Here, excess tab characters were deleted and diacritics were added (using html encoding).
The text was then again saved as plain text. This file was opened in Notepad and html head and tail information was added. This file was the first version that was saved and, viewed, as html. Obvious problems that could be resolved by find-and-replace were corrected.
The index was around 3250 lines and had coding for around 5000 links. To optimize transmission speed and loading time, the index was divided into 190 files, one for each genus, a "super-index" to genera and a file of notes. Some later modifications were made in Microsoft Front Page and Macromedia Dreamweaver 4. My thanks to Paul Soderdahl for helping bail me out of several ugly early failures in formatting!
I did not use OCR except in the production of the index. I found that uncorrected OCR scan was so full of errors that it was useless. Many of these errors occurred in words with (Umlauts are particularly troublesome to Omnipage Pro 12). The mess OCR makes of identification keys to species is astonishing, but understandable.
The main use of the Synopsis today is in diatom systematics and to some extent biogeography. For that reason I deemed the existing (and newly created) indexes to be of much greater use being able to search for every word, especially when those words are in 19th century French, oddly divided at the ends of lines by the printer.
I have given this account to show what I have done, and why it took well over a thousand hours. This set of methods obviously is not one that is adaptable to mass-production scanning. For specific works it may be useful. In my judgment as a diatomist, this is one of them.
Brummitt, R.K. and C.E. Powell [eds.]. 1992. Authors of Plant Names. Kew, Royal Botanic Gardens. [iv], 732 p.
In the digital index of the Synopsis I have followed the recommended abbreviations names of all of the authors, with the exception of Albert Grunow, who invariably used that spelling and not "Grunov" as given in Authors of Plant Names.
Kützing, Friedrich Traugott. 1849. Species algarum. Leipzig, Brockhaus. (Reprint. A. Asher, Amsterdam, 1969). 922 p.
Kützing, Friedrich Traugott. 1865. Die Kieselschalligen Bacillarien oder Diatomeen. 2er Abdr. Nordhausen, Germany.
I have often seen this work cited as being the second edition (zweite Auflage) of the work of the same title published in 1844. In fact the expression used is second printing (zweiter Abdruck). There is no indication of the method used for printing. It is hard to imagine that the original type had survived from 1844, so the 1865 printing probably represents a re-setting. The fine detail in the plates suggest that these may in fact be the same plates used in 1844 rather than a photomechanical reproduction. I have desciptions of the second printing that claim to have the words "unveränderter Abdruck" on the spine. I saw no internal evidence in the copy in The University of Iowa Libraries that corrections or additions were made, though it is of course possible. I did not have a copy of the 1844 printing for comparison, but the page citations given in VanLandingham, based on 1844, are identical to those in 1865 for the same taxa, as are the plate and figure numbers. I have occasionally made comments based on this work, and have proceeded on the assumption that the descriptions of taxa in the 1865 printing are identical to those used in 1844.
Patrick, Ruth and Charles W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Volume 1. Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, Achanthaceae, Naviculaceae. Philadelphia, Pa., Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. xi, 688 p.
The copy used has an issue date of May 10, 1966.
Patrick, Ruth and Charles W. Reimer. 1975. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Volume 2, part 1, Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Gomphonemaceae.Philadelphia, Pa., Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. ix, 213 p.
The copy used has an issue date of December 31, 1975.
Round, F.E., R.M. Crawford and D.G. Mann. 1990. The Diatoms : Biology & Morphology of the Genera. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press. 747 p.
Van Heurck, Henri. 1896. A Treatise on the Diatomaceae. London, William Wesley & Son. Translated by Wynne E. Baxter. xx, 558 p, xxv leaves of plates.
The copy used (from the collections in The University of Iowa Libraries) is numbered 78.
VanLandingham, Sam L. 1967-1979. Catalogue of the Fossil and Recent Genera and Species of Diatoms and their Synonyms. 8 v. Lehre, Germany and Vaduz, Liechtenstein. J. Cramer.
Specific page references are made to this work. The pagination in the taxonomic section is continuous. For those who may need the date and place of publication of particular volumes, the following may be of use. Catalogers (of books that is) please note that introductory pages, some numbered with roman numerals and some unnumbered, precede the taxonomic section of each volume. I give only the pagination for the taxonomic sections.
Part I. 1967. Acanthoceros through Bacillaria. pp. 1-493. (Lehre, Germany)
Part II. 1968. Bacteriastrum through Coscinodiscus. pp. 494-1086. (Lehre, Germany)
Part III. 1969. Coscinophaena through Fibula. pp. 1087-1756. (Lehre, Germany)
Part IV. 1971. Fragilaria through Naunema. pp. 1757-2385. (Lehre, Germany)
Part V. 1975. Navicula. pp. 2386-2963. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)
Part VI. 1978. Neidium through Rhoicosigma. pp. 2964-3605. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)
Part VII. 1978. Rhoicosphenia through Zygoceros. pp. 3606-4241. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)
Part VIII. 1979. Supplementary taxa (through 1964), supplementary references, synonymy addendum, corrections, additions. pp. 4242-4654. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)