[Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu Sep 6 03:59:52 CDT 2012
Yes, this is a line of reasoning that is possible, except the part
about the date of publishing. It is possible to look at a PDF
which was published in March 2012, containing a publication
registered in ZooBank, and note that in March it was
unpublished in the sense of the zoological Code. It remained
unpublished until the new amendment was accepted AND
the Archive was indicated, and then suddenly it sprang into
existence (according to the rules, now, it is published).
However, that does not mean that the publication date
would have been affected: there is a difference between the
date it came into existence (retroactively) and the publication
date. These are governed by different provisions in the Code.
Very slippery stuff, this retroactivity! (there are a lot of names
governed by the botanical Code that have suddenly come
into existence or dropped out of existence, complete with
a publication date, by retroactive changes in the botanical
Code, so it is somewhat familiar ground to me)
But there is a lot in the zoological Code that can be read in
more than one way; it has not been written to be read easily.
From: "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:02 AM
> Why not, Stephen? There's nothing in the Amendment that says that the
> Archive designation must have been present in the ZooBank entry from the
> 8.5.3: The work must "be registered in the Official Register of
> Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank)" (no actual specification of when this
> must have occurred). And it must "contain evidence in the work itself
> that such registration has occurred" (thus the registration must have
> occurred before the work content was finalised).
> 126.96.36.199: "The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature
> must give [...]". This is a simple present tense: I can't read this any
> other way than "this must so /now/".
> Both are fulfilled /now/, thus it seems to me that the pdf is validly
> published. Of course, as long as 188.8.131.52 was not met, the work was
> logically unpublished. Thus, as Rich noted, the real publication date
> should be when the designation was added.
> Perhaps it could be argued that it's not the case because the date of
> publication as stated in the pdf is actually incorrect, hence 8.5.2 is
> not "really" met? But arguing so might be a slippery slope, as the
> reasoning would then have to be extended to any other e-publication
> claiming a date not fully correct...
> (Also, the word "publication" seems to be used inconsistently in this
> part of the Amendment, which might make this type of argument
> problematic. In any case, the examples that are associated to 184.108.40.206
> very clearly use "published" in a sense that is /not/ "meeting the
> provisions of Article 8-9". In fact, the wording of this part of the
> Amendment - 220.127.116.11 + associated examples - leaves me very much
> L -
More information about the Taxacom