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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Sep 7 18:32:47 CDT 2012


Paul,
Of course anything written in any natural language can be read in more than one way! My reading seems to me to be what was intended, and given inevitable ambiguity, what was intended is surely the most sensible interpretation to go with? However, in the end, it will come down to case by case scrutiny, and I don't think there is any purpose in trying to discuss this any further "in the abstract"...
Cheers, Stephen

From: Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2012 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today

Stephen,

There is a very simple explanation: I am better at reading
than you are. There are indeed two ways to read this (and 
perhaps even more than two, for somebody even better 
versed at reading).

It is much the same thing as "The name is written with a 
capital initial letter". This can be read as meaning that 
unless a name is written with a capital initial letter it does 
not meet the requirements for valid publication. Yet the 
botanical Code makes this a mandatory requirement 
regularly (e.g. Art. 16.1), without it being an obstacle 
for valid publication. As a fail safe, in Art. 20.1, a 
"(see Art. 60.2)" has been added which qualifies this 
somewhat. Such Rules exist in the here and now.

It says "The entry ... must give ..." which can be literally
read to mean that the entry must give .... This without
jumping to the conclusion that at the time of publication
the entry had to meet that requirement, all that was 
required at the time of publication was that it 
"be registered". If the entry, now, does not meet the 
requirement, it must be corrected, now. After this has 
been done, it will comply with the Amendment. And indeed, 
entries have been altered after the fact, to include Internet 
addresses, so this does reflect real practice.

I did not say that it cannot be read the way you do, but
it isn't the only way to read this.

Paul



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Thorpe 
  To: Paul van Rijckevorsel ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org 
  Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today


  Paul, 
  I am not sure where you are going (or coming from) with this? I thought my previous post was clear, but here it is again: 


  8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must 
  8.5.1. have been issued after 2011, 
  8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and
  8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred. 
  8.5.3.1. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the name and Internet address of an organization other than the publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is capable of doing so. This information is not required to appear in the work itself. 
  8.5.3.2. The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work. The number is not required to appear in the work itself. 
  8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published. 

  There aren't two ways to read this! The fact that 8.5.3.1 is subordinate to 8.5.3 (with the consequence that the work itself must contain evidence that 8.5.3.1 was satisfied), plus the fact that 8.5.3.1 was pretty much an impossibility to satisfy before 4 Sep 2012 (which is conclusive counterevidence), means that nothing registered before that date can be a valid publication unless you are Dr. Who and can jump into your Tardis to go back in time ...

  to reiterate, the work itself must contain evidence that ZooBank registration satisfying 8.5.3 (and therefore 8.5.3.1) *has occurred*. If the work was issued before 4 Sep 2012, then how can it, when 8.5.3.1 was impossible to satisfy before 4 Sep 2012???

  Stephen


_______________________________________________

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