[Taxacom] Start of online early

John McNeill johnm at rom.on.ca
Thu Sep 27 08:44:20 CDT 2012

In his e-mail of *09/27/12 8:30 AM*, Paul van Rijckevorsel claimed that:

> The Melbourne Code does not require that the final version of the PDF
may not be altered later, see Art. 30 Note 2 and Ex. 6-8. 

This is grossly misleading to the point of being incorrect as is evident
from Art. 30.3:
*30.3.  The content of a particular electronic publication must not be
altered after it is effectively published. Any such alterations are not
themselves effectively published. Corrections or revisions must be
issued separately to be effectively published.*

Article 30 Note 2 and the associated examples quoted by Paul merely
establish that page numbers, watermarks, external links etc are not part
of the publication. So adding page numbers or replacing provisional page
numbers is not an alteration to the publication.

I do, however, entirely agree with Paul on the importance of the date of
publication of the version of record being included in the pdf and
maintained there even if it is later combined with other papers into an
*issue* or *volume*, perhaps with pagination added.

Meanwhile let me, like Paul earlier, repeat the link to the relevant
portion of the ICN (formerly ICBN):

John McNeill

John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, XVIII IBC,
    Nomenclature Proposals Editor, TAXON (TaxonNom at rbge.ac.uk)
    Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh.
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland,
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2848;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)

>>> "Paul van Rijckevorsel"  09/27/12 8:30 AM >>>
I am still trying to find my way in how to establish the date of
publication of an e-publication. It is easy when the PDF has a date of
publication: see Art. 31 Ex. 5: Solanum baretiae was published in
Phytokeys on 3 Jan 2012 and you can go to the Phytokeys-site and
download a PDF that says exactly that, thus meeting Art. 31.1 ("the
[date] appearing in the printed matter or electronic material must be
accepted as correct."). This is a PDF last altered on 30-12-2011. 

The Melbourne Code does not require that the final version of the PDF
may not be altered later, see Art. 30 Note 2 and Ex. 6-8. Thus, the date
on which the PDF was last altered is meaningless for the purpose of
establishing the date of publication. If an e-publication does not
include a date of publication, as in the case of Nanobubon hypogaeum
then there appears to be 
no way, for the average user, to establish a date of publication in
retrospect, other than going to IPNI and looking up what that says. It
is not that I don't trust IPNI, but this suggests that registration has
already been implemented? At least for e-published names that were
established in PDF's that do not include a date of publication in the

If registration in IPNI is not accepted as proof then surely Art. 31.2
comes into effect ("31.2.  When a publication is issued in parallel as
electronic material and printed matter, both must be treated as
effectively published on the same date unless the dates of the versions
are different as determined by Art. 31.1.")?


P.S. take-home lesson: make sure a PDF has an explicit date of
publication (as in Rec. 31B)!


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

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