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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sun Sep 9 02:24:42 CDT 2012

From: Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:44 AM

there has always been a problem with what the Code means by "published"
an available work is one which is 'published according to the Code'
an unavailable work may still be 'published' in the usual sense of the word,
such as works published before 1758, for example

The term 'problem' seems like an overstatement, but yes, having
both "published works" and "available works" looks
distinctly odd. If I have it right "available works" exist mostly
(or only?) in the Glossary, not in the body of the text of the Code.

In botanical nomenclature, nothing exists unless it is included
in an effectively published text or illustration. There are all
kinds of provisions as to what constitutes an effectively
published text or illustration.

In zoological nomenclature, this is less straightforward. If
I have it right, nothing in zoological nomenclature exists
unless it is included in a "published" text or illustration. There
are all kinds of provisions as to what constitutes a published
text or illustration. So far, so good. But then (going by the
Glossary) there is the added requirement, that no name or
nomenclatural act is made available (exceptions excepted)
unless it is included in an available text or illustration. This
extra requirement adds an extra layer for very limited benefit.

It does add extra complications, such as that the word
"available" can be applied to three different things, and
not just three different things but to fundamentally very
different things: names and nomenclatural acts are
conceptual in nature, while texts and illustrations are
physical objects. I already have a hard time trying to
apply "availability" to both names and nomenclatural
acts, while excluding descriptions, without this big

Note "Article 10. Provisions conferring availability.",
which disregards how availability may be conferred
upon a text or illustration.

Also note 11.4, names above the family group in an
unavailable work may nevertheless be available (to say
nothing of 11.4.3).

I don't see how anything would be lost if the entire
idea of "available work" and "unavailable work" would
be eliminated. There are detailed provisions on works
that have been "published" but in which nomenclatural
acts and names cannot be created ("made available"),
such as a work being ruled to be "suppressed" by the
Commission. These provisions could do just fine by
themselves, without this formal extra layer of "available
works" and "unavailable works". Surely readability
would be helped if this were eliminated?


More information about the Taxacom mailing list