propsal to change ICBN, I

JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE josephl at AZTEC.ASU.EDU
Thu Apr 3 09:10:52 CST 1997


Persuant to suggestions made during the recent "Dandy Dime"
discussion, the following is a draft proposal to change
the ICBN. Feedback is welcome and invited. I cannot
transmit fancy fonts by e-mail; the words between the
marks \\\ and /// indicates stuff to be deleted; the
words between *** and *** is to be added.

Question: do you think this needs a definition
separating a book from a pamphlet? I cannot think
of a good definition.

29.1 Publication  is effected  under this  Code only  by  the
distribution of  printed matter  (through sale,  exchange, or
gift) \\\to  the general  public or  at  least  to  botanical
institutions  with///   libraries  accessible   to  botanists
generally.

30.3  Publication  on  or  after  1  January  1953  in  trade
catalogues or  non-scientific newspapers,  and on  or after 1
January 1973  in seed-exchange  lists,  does  not  constitute
effective publication.  ***Publication on  or after 1 January
2001 is  effected only  through  publication  in  a  book  or
periodical devoted  entirely or  primarily to  publication of
the results  of scientific  research or botanical/mycological
exploration. A  periodical is  defined as  matter printed and
distributed on  a recurring  basis, whether  on a  regular or
irregular schedule.***

   The  prohibition   of  publication  in  trade  catalogues,
newspapers,  or   seed-exchange  lists   does  not  eliminate
completely the  possibility of  publication in non-scientific
fora. Names  could still  be published  in popular  magazines
(perhaps  in   the  form   of  paid   advertizements),  small
pamphlets, or  even in  such unusual forms as greeting cards.
The proposed revision to Article 30.3 would eliminate all but
the  two  forms  of  publication  commonly  accepted  by  the
botanical community.
   According  to   the  current   wording  of  Article  29.1,
"distribution ... to the general public" Seems preferred over
deposition in  botanical libraries.  Such distribution could,
however,  take  many  forms  unacceptible  to  the  botanical
community. This  could be in the form of mass mailings to the
residents of  a particular  city, dispersal  of fliers  at  a
public gathering,  or even  dropping  of  pamphlets  from  an
airplane. The  proposed deletion  of this clause from Article
29.1 would  ensure that  if  a  book  or  periodical  is  not
deposited in at least one library accessible to botanists, it
is not validly published.
   The definition  of "periodical" is worded so as to include
such  publications   as  Phytologia   and  Systematic  Botany
Monographs, published  nonperiodically, i.e.  on an irregular
basis rather  than on  a regular monthly, quarterly, or other
schedule.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere, Herbario, CEAMISH, Universidad
Autonoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico  -- OR --
c/o Mary Laferriere, 18 Maple Ave #3, Centerdale RI 02911 USA




More information about the Taxacom mailing list