[Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today

John Noyes j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Thu Sep 6 05:29:39 CDT 2012


Hi Rich

I agree - published in September, but only if the PDF issued in March 2012 contains evidence in itself that registration in Zoobank has occurred. From what you have said I think that this is unlikely because the author(s) probably would have been unaware that this would be a requirement of the future amendment to the Code published later in September. 

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Entomology
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
 
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: 06 September 2012 10:34
To: 'Paul van Rijckevorsel'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today

This is a very good discussion, and along the lines of what the
Commissioners wrestled with when making the decision about the effective
date of the Amendment.  The slopes are slippery in all directions.

One of the things I looked into during the ICZN discussion was the complete
list of works published after 2011 that were registered in ZooBank.
Presumably, this is the finite pool of possible works that could have been
considered published (or, at least could be confused as being published) in
the sense of the Amendment prior to September 4th. The point was to look at
the subset of such registered works that had an electronic version (not all
did), then the subset of *those* works where the electronic version was
published earlier than the paper version (or lacked a paper version), and
then the subset of *those* works that met the other criteria of the
Amendment (Archived, ISSN, etc.).  Although I did not research every single
work, I was unable to find any that met all of these criteria. Certainly,
none of them had an Archive indicated in ZooBank.

Another thing to consider: in general, when there are multiple criteria for
a published work to be available under the Code, and all those criteria are
not met simultaneously, then it seems to me that the effective date of
publication (for purposes of establishing nomenclatural priority for the
included nomenclatural acts) is the date on which all of the criteria are
fulfilled.  This has been the general model for new names (a model that I
believe is also followed for botanical names -- i.e., that the effective
date of establishment of a new name is taken as the date on which all
requirements of the protologue are fulfilled).

Following this logic, a PDF generated in March 2012, that had its Archive
indicated in ZooBank in September 2012, would be effectively published in
September; not March.

Is this logic flawed?

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:00 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today
>
> 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.
>
> Paul
>
> 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 beginning.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 8.5.3.1: "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 8.5.3.1 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 8.5.3.3
> > 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 - 8.5.3.3 + associated examples - leaves me very much
> > perplexed.)
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > L -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here


This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

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

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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




More information about the Taxacom mailing list