Names introduced in Dissertation Abstracts

Ron at Ron at
Thu Nov 8 16:26:34 CST 2001

While in the process of preparing a post very similar to the following -
this one came in.  Thus, I will only add a couple more comments to it's
fine presentation.
Ron Gatrelle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
Subject: Re: Names introduced in Dissertation Abstracts

> At 10:02 AM -0800 11/8/01, Barry Roth wrote:
> >Dissertation Abstracts International would seem to
> >fulfill the requirements of Publication under Article
> >8 of the ICZN -- it consists of numerous identical,
> >simultaneously obtainable copies, on paper, available
> >by purchase, made for the purpose of providing a
> >public and durable record, etc.
> Hi Barry,
> You are referring to the Abstracts version that many libraries have
> in their Reference Section. Yes, it does constitute a valid
> publication if there is not a disclaimer in Dissertations Abstracts
> to contravene that. A replacement name for a Hawaiian bird was
> validated in just such an "Abstract" in 1979.
> But do not confuse this form of publication with the original message
> in this thread, which concerned a request for a copy from UMI of the
> full dissertation. Does that copy of the full dissertation represent
> a valid publication?

My post was specifically addressed to the original message.  This is why I
said "The simple answer to your question from the information you presented
is no"   My post was obviously not intended as a thesis on all the many
scenarios that one might think of.  So, Chris, my answer as addressed was
as simple as I thought.

> You need to read further in the ICZN Code to see that this form of
> publication is not regarded as a valid published work. Article 9.7

I am glad someone finally brought up article nine.

> lists one of the forms of printing that does not meet the criteria of
> "publication" according to the ICZN Code as: "copies obtained on
> demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited
> in a library or other archive". Getting multiple simultaneously
> printed copies of a dissertation through UMI is publication on
> demand.

Publications have a specific date - sometimes down to year, month, day,
hour and page.  The author and name are validated from that point.
Published is not facilateted by mean of discimination over several months
or years upon random requests.  "...It _must_ be obtainable, when first
issued... (8.1.2)"    " a method that assures numerous
identical...copies (8.1.3)".   It is too bad the ZN code is totally vague
on "numerous". To me this means 50 or more.  What it does clearly imply is
that these numerous identical copies are all to be published at the same
time "... in _an_ edition..."  Otherwise there could be no "date".
(Reprints etc. are a whole other topic unrelated to date of publication.)

But, as Chris indicated earlier, to be accurate, one must
> check with UMI to see what their publication and distribution
> practice is. Do they only receive a copy of the dissertation and do
> nothing with it until a request comes in; or do they soon after
> receipt of a dissertation deliver multiple simultaneously printed
> copies of each dissertation to libraries for deposition.


> To further restrict matters, for works after 1985, Articles 8.5 and
> 8.6 also apply, since UMI does not employ a method considered

This is kind of a peeve of mine.  In discussions on the code it seems that
at times parties drag up something that occurred back in 1757, or 1929, or
1898, or 1963, or 1985 or 1999 to establish their current point.  The
problem is that each version of the code provides "exceptions" to its
latest edition's requirements to insure usage stability.  If we were to
just go with the Jan 1, 2000 Vol 4 ZN code the majority of all previous
works would be disallowed.

> "conventional printing" to distribute their dissertations. Taking
> these articles into account; explicit statements must be made in such
> works that any new name or nomenclatural act was "intended for public
> and permanent scientific record" (8.5.1); and that the work was
> produced in an edition containing simultaneous copies (8.5.2); the
> latter statement is made more explicit in Article 8.6 (for works
> after 2000) that specifies that the work was deposited in at least 5
> major publicly accessible libraries, which are named in the work.

Which are named in the work, indeed.  The depository can not be after the
fact -- it must be before the fact.  One can not name a specific
institution unless it is already known that said work is _being_  (about to
be) placed there.

> In addition, works available only over the web (such as pdf files
> that may contain new names or nomenclatural acts) are not considered
> valid publications by ICZN by virtue of 9.8. As Chris stated, this
> again is why one needs to check UMI's distribution and publication
> policy to verify that these forms of dissemination do or do not meet
> the criteria for publication according to the ICZN Code.

> >Is a new animal genus name published in a dissertation
> >in Dissertation Abstracts International therefore
> >available if the abstract contains (1) a statement
> >that the name is new, (2) designation of a
> >type-species, and (3) mention of characters that
> >purport to differentiate the taxon?
> Only if there is no disclaimer somewhere in that Dissertations
> Abstract volume (that contains the "abstract" with the new
> nomenclatural act) that contravenes any new nomenclatural act from
> being intended for the public and permanent scientific record.
> --Neal Evenhuis

I also want to address this statement by Chris.  "So, if the only available
copies were being ONLY distributed on the Internet, then the thesis is not
published in the sense of the ICZN. However, IF UMI Dissertation Abstract
services provides a number of
subscribers copies of their pdf version on paper at the same time, then
those Dissertations are available unless disclaimed.  For a number of
years, Dissertation Abstract indeed did have a set of subscribers who
purchased copies of all theses "published" by UMI. Hence, many PhD theses
are in fact publications under the Code."

I see this as accurate in what he meant but it may not necessarily clear to
all who read it.  The only "version" that counts toward ZN publication are
paper or CDR copies.  PDF files are totally outside the code.  Providing
copies of PDF via paper _does not_ fulfill the code.  This wording would
imply that the "valid publication" occurred via a PDF file.  The correct
progression is -  providing copies via PDF of paper originals.
CDR (read only CD) medium is the only non paper media I see as specifically
allowed within the new ZN code.    See code introduction section 9 page
XXVII .  9(b) eliminates printouts from PDF files.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list