[Taxacom] Start of online early

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu Sep 27 10:11:30 CDT 2012


Well, I see it as neither "grossly misleading" nor "incorrect".
I will agree it is unbalanced, but it is necessarily so, and
anyone wanting a more balanced overview can read the
advance copy of this chapter of the Melbourne Code for
themselves.

The point I was trying to emphasize is that there is a very
uncertain relationship between the PDF and the effectively
published protologue. The PDF may be made well in
advance of the date of publication, may be altered later,
well after the date of publication, and as in the case of
Nanobubon hypogaeum (if I understand this correcty)
the original PDF may be thrown out, and a new one
created.

The actual protologue, the 'core-protologue' is not altered
but it is somewhat hard to understand how exactly it exists.
It is not printed on paper, nor is it an unalterable e-document.
Perhaps it can be likened to a page-set-in-lead in the days of
lead printing: different imprints could be made of it, but then
without these counting as different publications. That would
be different from printed matter, as there it does matter,
something printed in advance of the appearance of the journal
would be a preprint (and might constitute a publication in its
own right), something printed afterward would be a reprint.

But it very much takes getting used to.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John McNeill
To: dipteryx at freeler.nl ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Start of online early



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):
http://www.iapt-taxon.org/downloads/Melb_Code_Ch_IV_Eff_Publ.pdf

John McNeill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, XVIII IBC, Melbourne
    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, U.K.
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" <dipteryx at freeler.nl> 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 publication.

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.")?

Paul

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
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

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





Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2013.0.2677 / Virusdatabase: 2591/5792 - datum van uitgifte:
09/25/12



Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2013.0.2677 / Virusdatabase: 2591/5792 - datum van uitgifte:
09/25/12






More information about the Taxacom mailing list