Talk:The Malay Archipelago/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article grew out of some work I was doing for the Alfred Russel Wallace article. It is more than a stub but it could still use expansion. In particular I would like to find more information oan how The Malay Archipelago has been used over the years by scientists, governement officials, other authors and the like. I also know it was translated into many other languages, but I have never been able to find a stat for how many.Rusty Cashman 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Expedition?
Very interesting article, Rusty. Whose/which expedition was he on? Or did he travel alone? 86.146.46.120 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unlike Darwin on the HMS Beagle, or Huxley on the HMS Rattlesnake, Wallace was never part of any official expedition. His explorations in South East Asia like his earlier explorations in South America were financed by the sale of specimens to museums and wealthy collectors back in Europe. The Royal Geographical Society did help Wallace with his passage to Singapore and with getting permission from the Dutch government to travel in Indonesia (which was then the Dutch East Indies). His only traveling companions in the archipelago were his assistants. The first was a young Englishman named Charles Allen, who only stayed with Wallace for 18 months, and the other was a Malay youth name Ali (nobody seems to have recorded a surname for him) who joined Wallace shortly before Allen left, and stayed with him until his return to England. I am glad you liked the article. It should probably be expanded.Rusty Cashman 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Publication section
Says the book "was first published in 1869 in two volumes by Macmillan and Company (London) and the same year in one volume by Harper & Brothers (New York). It was revised through 10 editions with the last published in 1890." Is there a confusion here between edition and reprint? I ask because my 1894 Macmillan reprint says
- First edition (2 vols, crown 8vo) February 1869
- Reprinted October 1869
- New edition (1 vol crown 8vo) February 1872 (ie this would be the 2nd edition)
- Reprinted October 1872, 1874, 1877, 1879, 1883, 1886
- New edition (1 vol extra crown 8vo) 1890, 1893, 1894 (ie presumably 1890 would be the third edition, and 1893 and 1894 were reprints of that edition)
Regardless of whether you see them as reprints and/or editions, there are at least 12 separate publishing events, not 10. I say 'at least' because I don't know what happened after 1894, the date of my copy. Stronach (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)