electronic publication

Geoff Read g.read at NIWA.CRI.NZ
Wed Mar 26 13:52:49 CST 1997


Andrey Sharkov said:
> First of all, I think that any attempt to prove that EP of new taxa conforms
> with the provisions of the ICZN can not be justified simply because in 1985,
> when the code was adapted, the WWW and CD-ROMs did not exist, and nobody
> could forsee their appearance. Therefore, the provisions of the Code may not
> be applied to electronic publication, because it was not considered by the
> Commission.

In the draft 4th ed of June 1995 article nine has one new exclusion (about
meeting abstracts). Otherwise it is unchanged since ten years earlier in
1985. It is difficult to understand why.

A simple move now would be to  change  exclusion 9(6) from "computer
printouts as such" to "computer files and printouts as such."

> Also, Recommendation 8A clearly states, that "authors are strongly urged to
> ensure that a new scientific name or nomenclatural act if first published in
> a work produced by conventional printing..."

8A became 8B in the draft and printing is not mentioned. What is
conventional changes rapidly, but 'printing' or (in 1995) 'work produced
on paper' seems to rule out the CD-ROMs and floppies possibly allowed in
8(d)(i) [1985 & 1995: method not employing printing on paper].

Nevertheless, names published ignoring the recommendation would have to be
taken into account it seems.

--
  Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list