[Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question
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
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).
> -----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
> >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
> >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
> with "zoology".
More information about the Taxacom