r.h.becker at READING.AC.UK
Fri Jan 13 21:50:12 CST 2006
From: <Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG>
> The proposals on electronic publishing were clobbered at the Vienna
> botanical nomenclatural meetings, I hear, and probably won't be proposed
> again by a special committee, anyway, as in the last two congresses, for a
> long time (thus a moratorium).
> Given that electronic publication is now becoming an expected adjunct to
> hardcopy publication, I think a natural evolution towards publication of
new names solely electronically is in progress, and we need only wait a few
years until scientific journals phase out their hardcopy.
Well, there is nothing to prevent electronic journals from simultaneously
printing out a certain minimum of paper copies, say five to ten copies
mailed to major botanical libraries, to conform to the letter of the /Code/.
If this becomes common practice, then maybe the /Code/ will adapt itself.
I thing, printed copies, should be distributed to different institutions, to
insure that coming generations can access it.
Databases can run out of money and disappear, unlikely libraries at Kew or
On the other hand, we should insure that publications are on the web and
accessible to anyone and anywhere.
But there is no need to change the code.
If one deposits two printed copies in any libraries accessible to the
general public it is an effective publication.
29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by 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. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public
meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the
public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, typescripts or
other unpublished material, by publication online, or by dissemination of
distributable electronic media.
More information about the Taxacom