[Taxacom] e-only publication for zoology, starts today
l.raty at skynet.be
Sun Sep 9 14:26:36 CDT 2012
On 09/09/2012 01:44 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
An available work is a work in which nomenclatural acts [including the
introduction of new names] can be established.
Or, if you want to look at it from the opposite angle (which I think is
how the concept actually evolved): it's a validly published work, that
is not affected by any general problem that would automatically make ALL
the nomenclatural acts it might include unavailable.
"An available work is one which is 'published according to the Code'",
but which ALSO:
- was issued after 1757,
- is consistently binominal,
- does not contain a statement to the effect that all names and
nomenclatural acts in it are disclaimed,
- was not published anonymously after 1950,
- was not suppressed by the Commission for the purposes of Nomenclature.
An "unavailable work" (see "work" in the Glossary) is *also* a work that
is "published according to the Code", but that is not available. (Ie.:
either issued before 1758, non-binominal, with a disclaimer, published
anonymously after 1950, or suppressed by the Commission.)
Why this concept? The content of an unavailable work (but not of an
unpublished work) can be referenced in an available work, in order to
fulfill a requirement associated to a nomenclatural act being
established there. Eg., you can name a new species without
(re-)describing it, provided that you give a reference to a work that
describes it (Art.13.3.2). The work where you name the species must be
available, the work with the description may be either available or
unavailable. But it cannot be unpublished.
A work that is "published in the usual sense", but not "according to the
Code" indeed doesn't exist as far as zoological nomenclature is concerned.
> one can read the amendement in a quite paradoxical way, i.e. an
> electronic work must be registered on ZooBank before it is published!
> Since it isn't published (according to the Code) until it is registered,
> it is impossible to do anything other than register it before it is
> published, i.e. if you haven't registered it, it ain't published!
Yep, so it is.
> But "published" can be understood in the broader sense, of which
> "issued" is more or less a synonym.
In an every-day conversation, certainly. But is the word used anywhere
in the Code with this meaning? (Except now, in the Amendment, that is.)
> So, a work must be registered before it is issued (and evidence of
> this added to the work itself before issue). But what if that doesn't
> happen? Does that mean that the work can *never* be published
> electronically according to the Code?? Does the work need to be
> reissued after registration?What does that mean?? We know what it
> means to reissue hard copy, but how do you reissue an electronic
> copy that is already up on the web??
Create a new file with altered content and upload it?
The alteration could probably be limited. Registration info must be
added, but this can be an embedded link. A publication date must be
added if there was none. If a date is already present, it could be
replaced with another one, albeit an added "date of publication for ICZN
purposes", next to the original date, could arguably also do the trick?
(To me it would seem preferable not to disturb the way an existing work
is being cited in the literature.)
The new file would be published from the day you start distributing it.
The file without registration info can, indeed, never become published.
> If the electronic journal is *conventionally structured* (i.e., with
> volume/issue numbers) then I guess one could reissue it under a later
> volume/issue number, but there is no requirement that an e-journal be
> so structured. Perhaps one could just change the date of publication
> stated on the work itself to later (i.e. after the registration), but
> that seems a bit too easy and dodgy ...
Why should it be difficult? (Of course this will *never* make the acts
in the work date from the day the work was originally issued, in its
More information about the Taxacom