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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Sep 6 14:12:04 CDT 2012


Thanks, Paul -- this is very good analysis.  Even if it is only an academic
discussion, I think it's very important to have.  I view this period between
the Amendment taking effect and the time at which the 5th Edition takes
effect as being very useful for discovering issues that can be addressed in
the 5th Edition.  In 2008, I was opposed to the entire idea of the Amendment
because I felt it would be better use of our time to focus on the 5th
Edition.  However, I'm now very happy for the Amendment, because it provides
an opportunity for us to learn valuable lessons while crafting the 5th
Edition.

I cannot over-emphasize my earlier statement that the slopes are slippery in
all directions.  This is the risk we accept in order to make progress.

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: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:14 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today
>
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:33 AM
>
> 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
>
> ***
> Oh yes, I full well realize that this is mostly an academic discussion.
> For the vast majority of cases registered in ZooBank the date of
publication
> would be the same for the online and print versions, so it does not
> particularly matter if the PDF is published in the sense of the zoological
Code.
> Only when the online version would be published earlier would there be an
> actual, practical difference (I am assuming that ZooBank did not register
e-
> only publications until now).
>
> As to your line of reasoning, this seems to be at odds with Article 8.5.2:
if it
> was not published on the date stated in the publication then surely it was
not
> published at all? Certainly, not with a difference of months involved.
>
> Whether a publication can spring into existence in September with a
> publication date in March, this appears to to depend on how you read "be
> registered" in 8.5.3. It is not unreasonable to assume that the
requirements
> listed in 8.5.3.1 and 8.5.3.2 must all have been met for "be registered"
to
> have taken place.
> However, that does not mean it cannot be read differently. In fact, if you
do
> assume this, it does mean that until the internet addresses of Archives
were
> added (which happened at a later date than the announcement of the
> Amendment) no e-only name was published ("The entry ... must give the
> Internet address ..." which was not the case, initially).
>
> So, arguably, any e-only name published before the Internet addresses were
> added was not published at all, but again the average ZooBank user cannot
> tell if this is the case, on the evidence available...
>
> Slippery, indeed.
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list