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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sat Sep 8 12:24:51 CDT 2012


From: "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 12:10 PM

> I think that, in [8.5.3.3 + examples], "published" should have been
> "issued", and "not available" should have been "not published". The
> problem is much more evident in the example. There we are assured that
> "registration occurred after publication"; but if publication is in the
> meaning of (the rest of) Article 8, this simply cannot be: if
> registration was delayed, publication did not occur.
> There seems to be no good reason to use "not available" here: the 
> article is all about criteria of publication, failing to comply should 
> make a work "not published". I do see a "bad" reason, though: using 
> "published" with two conflicting meanings in the same text would create 
> obvious problems. (Eg.: "it is not published because it was published 
> [before it was registered].")

***
I agree that "unavailable" in 8.5.3.3 seems wrong. "Available works"
are a subset of "published works" (the botanical "effectively published
texts and illustrations" are zoology's "available works", not "published 
works"). It seems very clear that the intent here is "does not prevent a 
work from being published". The final "published" in 8.5.3.3 could be 
replaced by "issued", if this is deemed stylistically better, but it does 
not need to be (it is correct as it is).

In the second paragraph of the "Examples." following 8.5.3.3 both 
the "not available"'s should indeed be "not published"'s and the 
"published" and "after publication" should be "issued" and "after the 
work had been issued". It is also a little confusing that there are three 
sentences in the second paragraph constituting two examples. 
Readability would be helped if there were either two examples
in two sentences or two examples in two paragraphs.

Paul





More information about the Taxacom mailing list