Article 8.1.1 of ICZN

Steve at Steve at
Thu Aug 1 17:34:51 CDT 2002


Like I said, way to hard ...


There's no question that solving all of the world's ills is a challenging
task.  It's also true that solving 80% of them only takes 20% of the time.

There's also no question that implementing a registration system will take
thought and consideration.  There is no question that we need to build on
the foundations provided by the current Code(s) and peer review systems.
Both have been developed over a long period and have served us well.  It
would be foolish to through them out and it's hard to imagine better
systems.

What the recent thread demonstrated (again) is that the paper-based
publishing system we all hold so dear has significant problems.  A
registration system could be as simple as replacing "paper" with a Web
browser.  Same peer review, same criteria for availability (less "numerous
identical and durable copies"), same everything.  It could be as simple as
replacing Article 8.1.3* in the ICZN with "and the information has been
submitted to www.namesRus.com".  Peer review can be used to move the
information from the "submitted" pile to the "validated" pile or the
"rejected" pile, and these reviews could be part of the permanent record for
the taxon submission (unlike current reviews which are hidden from public
view).  Everything else could remain exactly as it is in the current ICZN.

It's so simple it's almost scary.

Steve Shattuck

* Article 8.1.3 reads "it [the publication] must have been produced in an
edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures
numerous identical and durable copies".




More information about the Taxacom mailing list