[Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Nov 12 19:15:20 CST 2010

You'll need to be more specific about what you mean by "go wrong".


From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Richard Pyle; Neal Evenhuis; fautin at ku.edu
Cc: taxacom; Frank Krell
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question

>The vision for Zoobank (and MycoBank) is that the *registry* is electronic
(a database

and what happens if the electronics go wrong?


From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; fautin at ku.edu
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Frank Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Sent: Sat, 13 November, 2010 1:35:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question

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
> 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


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here


More information about the Taxacom mailing list