[Taxacom] e-publishing in botany also formally accepted at IBC.
dipteryx at freeler.nl
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sat Jul 30 11:54:09 CDT 2011
It was pointed out that is not strictly accurate. In dealing with
the Code it is not only important to keep in mind that it is
retroactive, but also that the Code is not the book, nor is the
book the Code.
The Code is amended by the Congress, and the book is merely
the manifestation of that action, at least until a later Congress
accepts it as such.
Sometimes a provision can only be known from the book, as for
instance Art. 49.2, which first became public in the 2006 book,
not having been accepted as such by the Congress. A provision
such as that on electronic publication became widely known as soon
as it was accepted.
So, the Melbourne Code may be said to operate now, even though
it will be many months before it will assume form, or is knownable
in any detail.
Van: dipteryx at freeler.nl [mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl]
Verzonden: za 30-7-2011 12:17
Yes, for all practical purposes the date of importance is
1 Jan 2012. Strictly speaking it is a little more complicated.
1) At the moment the date will be 1 Jan 2012
2) On 1 Jan 2012 nothing will happen, as the provision will
come into effect only with the publication of the new Code.
3) However, when the Code is published (Aug/Sept?) and the
provision does come into effect, all the names so published
since 1 Jan 2012 will not only suddenly come into existence,
but will have been existing since their date of publication.
In retrospect, the date of change will have been 1 Jan 2012.
So between 1 Jan 2012 and the date of publication of the Code
these names will be in limbo (waiting to have been existing
since 1 Jan 2012). And if there should be no published Code,
or if a future Code reverses the provision, it is in limbo
that they reside permanently ...
The joys of having a retroactive Code!
Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Jim Croft
Verzonden: za 30-7-2011 10:29
The date of effect is 1 Jan 2012, I guess a respectable interval to give
people time to line up ducks, or whatever it is they have to do to deal with
a brave new world.
No idea how long it takes to edit and print (ugh! such an ugly and passe
word these days) the new edition of the code. Somehow, I don't think those
with elecrons poised are going to be worrying too much. :)
On Jul 30, 2011 12:54 PM, "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> What? Caution? Why be prudent? If the botanists can do it - isn't that
proof enough that it is OK?
> In actuality, if the ICZN votes "yes" on the amendment proposal, the
botanists will be watching US since the ICZN amendment doesn't have to wait
for a new Code and can be enacted right after the vote. I'm pretty sure the
botanists have to wait for a new ICBN book to come out first ....
More information about the Taxacom