electronic publication

Thu Mar 20 05:38:50 CST 1997

  Thus far, all the answers to Richard Fagerlund's posting
yesterday have dealt with the question of whether or not
electronic publication is desirable. None has addressed
his contention that it is already is acceptible.
  Being a botanist, I am unfamiliar with the ICZN and
have no copy available, but according to my esteemed colleague,
it says a new name must be

"reproduced in ink on paper by some method that assures
numerous identical copies."

This sounds to me as if photocopying or merely printing
more than one copy from a computer using a laser- or ink-jet
printer would be sufficient. It also seems to me from the
wording of this that electronic "publication" does not
satisfy the requirements, but the act of producing
paper printouts from a web site might. Fine
distinction, but an important one.
   The main problem with electronic publication is not
availability, as some have suggested. The main problem
is its malleability. Even if a web site is still
readable in the year 2010, what guarantee is there that
it will still say the same thing it did in 1997? In
most fields this would not be a problem, but the
priority rules in nomenclature necessitate knowing

Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere, 4717 E First St., Tucson AZ 85711 USA.
After 20 Apr 1997: Herbario, CEAMISH, Universidad Autonoma del
Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list