[Taxacom] justified emendation vs prevailing usage problem

Thomas Pape TPape at snm.ku.dk
Thu Jan 22 09:16:22 CST 2009


I fully agree with Laurent, and I would break it up into the same three
parts:

"The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's
corrigendum issued

- simultaneously with the original work or
- as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work 
- (or if in a journal, or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of
the same volume)

is to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error."

The parenthesis has puzzled me. Grammatically, the use of the
parenthesis would tell me, that if the correction is issued "in one of
the [subsequently published] parts of the same volume", then it *has* to
be as an inserted slip. This would not make sense to me, and I would
think that the parenthesis simply should be deleted in the next version
of the Code.

/Thomas Pape


-----Original Message-----
From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org
[mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Raty
Sent: 22. januar 2009 15:34
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] justified emendation vs prevailing usage
problem

Francisco,

> It has remained unclear if "volume" in the sense of this passage 
> refers to a simultaneously published set of sheets, to correspond 
> with the ruling for monographs (where only a simultaneously published 
> correction is accepted), or really in the sense of being a set of 
> parts published either simulateously or subsequently at different 
> dates. The debate was around the question where - if the second 
> option is favoured - the limit should be set for the "one-volume 
> rule".

We indeed had this discussion earlier... And it was, and still is, much 
more unclear to me than this.

I read this article:

"The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's 
corrigendum issued
- simultaneously with the original work or
- as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, 
or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume)
is to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error."

Could you possibly try to parse the article in a comparable way, to make

it clear how you read it?

Under my reading, the Code does not, and most likely never intended to, 
mandate that a corrigendum be issued simultaneously with the original 
work, be it in the case of a journal or of a monograph.
A corrigendum can be issued later, but then:
- it has to be issued as a slip to be inserted in the work, that must 
have been circulated (to the work's subscribers) or,
- "if in a journal (etc...)" (and if still possible) it can appear in a 
subsequent part of the same volume.

I see this as making a lot of sense, because these two options are (or, 
at least, used to be) precisely those ensuring that a corrigendum not 
issued with the original work would reach all of those who subscribed to

this work (subscription to journals (etc...) being deemed to be on a per

volume basis) - which I think is the main purpose of this particular 
article.
Note the wording "as a circulated slip", not "as a slip to be 
circulated" - the circulation must really have taken place for the 
correction to be acceptable. Thus, in practice, the issuing of a 
corrigendum is limited, notably in time, by the feasability of the 
circulation of the slip.

I've really tried hard to look at it from other angles, but any other 
reading invariably seems odd to me.

All the best,
Laurent -
--
Laurent Raty
l.raty at skynet.be

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list




More information about the Taxacom mailing list