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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sat Sep 8 02:39:24 CDT 2012


Stephen,

Of course it is important what was intended by those who wrote it.
However, there is no end of laws that were later reinterpreted, and
that are used in ways that were clearly not intended by those who 
wrote them.

I see there is one more argument that I did not mention. Article
8.5.3.1 and 8.5.3.2 can only be fulfilled if ZooBank holds up its
end. If ZooBank decides to delete a field in the entry then there
is nothing that the issuer of the publication can do. That is,
primary control over fulfilling 8.5.3.1 and 8.5.3.2 rests with
ZooBank. This, while the entire control over fulfilling 8.5.1, 
8.5.2, and 8.5.3 rests with whoever issues the publication. 
These sets of provisions are, arguably, aimed at different people.

On a general note, I am glad to see that the Amendment includes
several Examples, which should greatly help in interpreting the
new text. 

Paul
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Thorpe 
  To: Paul van Rijckevorsel ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 1:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today


  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



More information about the Taxacom mailing list