[Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Nov 12 18:35:55 CST 2010


Just for a bit of clarification:

The "one journal" requirement for Bacteriological names is only for the
*registration* of those names.  The actual published description of the new
names (sensu botany & zoology) may occur in that one journal, or it may
occur in a completely different Journal (how many others there are, I don't
know).

A key point here is that the *registry* for bacteriological names is a
paper-based system (although the journal is also available electronically),
within a Journal.  The vision for Zoobank (and MycoBank) is that the
*registry* is electronic (a database), and not formally tied to any specific
journal (nor even "published", in any traditional sense of that word).

Aloha,
Rich

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal Evenhuis [mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org] 
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: fautin at ku.edu; Richard Pyle
> Cc: taxacom; Frank Krell
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/12/10 1:25 PM, "fautin at ku.edu" <fautin at ku.edu> scribbled the
> following:
> 
> >But a major difference
> >-- one that has been proposed for zoology but is loudly rejected for 
> >many reasons -- is the single-journal pass point.  This 
> makes tracking 
> >all names easy -- and it allowed the bacteriologists to go 
> electronic 
> >without some of the objections zoologists are hearing.
> 
> OK, let's say we give this a try for zoology taxonomy. But 
> before we do:
> 1. How many bacteriology journals died to give life to the 
> single journal requirement? 
> 2. How many more editors and funds did it take to handle on 
> all the bacteriology taxonomy in one journal as opposed to a 
> distributed network of editors for different journals?
> 
> What are the answers to these same questions if we replace 
> "bacteriology"
> with "zoology".
> 
> -Neal
> 
> 






More information about the Taxacom mailing list