[Taxacom] (no subject)

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Tue Feb 9 13:32:16 CST 2010


I cannot see that proposed article 8.5 "Works issued and distributed
electronically" makes any restriction to journal only publishing.

On Pat LaFollette's "no form of electronic record is accepted as permanent
by governments". Here in New Zealand all land ownership transactions and
registrations are electronic only. It's enforced in statute. You can't get
much more long-term legally or more serious than matters of property
ownership. Boy, are we in trouble if the e-archives (hopefully multiple)
ever fall over. But everyone has printouts so that's alright then.


>>> On 10/02/2010 at 7:45 a.m., Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
> David Campbell wrote:
>>In addition to the problem of intentional rogue taxonomy, e‑only
>>accidental rogue taxonomy much easier, e.g. putting online something
>>that is unpublished such as a dissertation; making and perpetuating of
>>erroneous names; taxonomic changes occuring in poorly documented
>>updates; etc.  We have these sorts of problems already in print;
>>simply allows the problem to be much bigger.
> Before this gets any farther off track...
> The *idea* is to allow names published in e‑only *journals* to be
> taxonomically valid. The idea is NOT to validate names appearing in
> any electronic document anywhere.

> Also, Pat LaFollette wrote:
>>So far as I have been able to discover, no form of electronic record
>>is accepted as permanent by governments, business, or law.  (Apart
>>from paper, only microfilm is acceptable in some cases.)  If e‑only
>>is not considered suitable for laws, vital records, deeds, business
>>contracts, or any other record that law requires be preserved for
>>more than a few (3 to 7) years, how can systematic biology find it
>>acceptable for the permanent taxonomic record?
> The amount of money that has been spent on the sequences stored in
> GenBank is absolutely massive. There is no "print version" of
> GenBank; they consider electronic archives to be perfectly
> acceptable. If they can accept it, WE can accept it. There is nothing
> *technically* challenging here, only a source of funding to maintain
> and upgrade the archives.

Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz

More information about the Taxacom mailing list