[Taxacom] FW: Systematic Entomology

John McNeill johnm at rom.on.ca
Mon Jul 28 08:55:04 CDT 2014

The background mailing to my previous one emphasising Art. 30 Note 2  

John McNeill

>>> John McNeill  07/28/14 11:56 AM >>>
<!--/* Font Definitions */@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5
2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2
4;}@font-face{font-family:TimesLTStd-Roman;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0;}@font-face{font-family:"\@TimesLTStd-Roman";panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0;}/* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
New Roman","serif";}a:link,
WordSection1{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt

From: John McNeill 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:55 AM
To: 'John Noyes'; iczn-list at afriherp.org
Subject: RE: Systematic Entomology

I am in no position to judge whether or not the publication to which you
refer satisfies the requirements of the ICZN for publication (what the
ICN -- formerly the ICBN -- terms "effective publication").  However in
finalizing the wording of the ICN covering electronic publication we
spent some time seeking to clarify what is and is not the final version
that will not be altered -- the "version of record" in publishers'
terminology.  Out conclusions may be of interest to some followers of
the ICZN list.
I attach a copy of the relevant portions of the ICN (with the portions
dealing with electronic publication in blue). Or else see:
http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art30; and to a lesser
extent http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art31

John McNeill
John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, XVIII IBC, 2011
Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh;
Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum.
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: J.McNeill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)


 From: iczn-list [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of
John Noyes
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:38 AM
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology

Dear All,
I recently  was sent a prepublication (“EarlyView”) version of a
taxonomic paper in which various nomenclatural acts are proposed:
Baur, H., et al. 2014 Morphometric analysis and taxonomic revision of
Anisopteromalus Ruschka (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Pteromalidae) – an
integrative approach. Systematic Entomology  DOI: 10.1111/syen.12081.
This electronic publication can be considered as valid according to
Article 8 of the ICZN dealing with electronic publications. Or can it?
On the face of it is complies with the Code in that it has been
registered with ZooBank and it has a publication date of 12 June 2012.
My doubt is that according to Articles 9.9 and 21.8.3 preliminary
versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication
are not to be considered as published. It seems a sort of circular
argument here. Can this EarlyView version can be considered published
merely because it appears to comply with Article 8 or can it be
considered as unpublis
hed because it is an advance versversion (which will have volume and final pagination – both absent from
this version).
If it cannot be considered as published then I foresee no problem.
However, if it can be considered as published then it may be opening a
can of worms and I am wondering if there is any decent way of solving
the problem before it becomes general practice.
In my view such prepublications (if they are available) must be treated
as completely separate publications because they do not have IDENTICAL
volume and pagination to that of the final printed version or electronic
version. This in turn will making databasing for nomenclatural purposes
difficult because the pagination (at least) and lack of volume number
means that the publication in which a name (and other nomenclatural
acts) is made available originally has to be recorded as a DOI (not as a
volume number) and the page number as it appears in the prepub and not
the printed version. To say the least it is confusing because, in the
future, I can see two versions of effectively the same paper being
recorded as the primary source of a nomenclatural act whilst only the
prepub will be the correct one. Publishers regard these prepubs as a
temporary, earlier version of the final (printed) version of the paper
and thus will al most certainly not make effort to make them permanent
records in any way and so, in time, the primary source of a
nomenclatural act will be lost.
My thought is this. Is it really necessary to publish a prepublication
of a taxonomic paper? I think not - we taxonomists are not under the
same pressure as medics or particle physicists to publish first. So why
publish a prepub at all? From a taxonomic/nomenclatural point of view it
is pointless and very frustrating, especially for those of us that are
trying to maintain electronic taxonomic databases. Can we do something
about it before it is too late? I suspect that if these code compliant
prepubs are not abandoned now then many, many other journals are going
to follow suit making life difficult for us all.
Of course, it is likely that all journals will be eventually produced in
only electronic format but until that happens I think prepubs (that are
ICZN compliant) for taxonomic/systematic papers should be abandoned.
What are the views of others?
John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
chalcidoids and more):

From: iczn-list [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of
Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman
Sent: 17 July 2014 06:37
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [iczn-list] Time to renounce ... Malayopython ... taxonomic

Dear all, nothing better epitomizes the taxonomic vandalism and misuse
of the zoological code than the Wuster gang's over-writing of the 10
year old established name Broghammerus with their own coined name
In spite of their best and tireless efforts of carpet bombing and
harassing of everyone to use their improper nomenclature, people are
resisting them.
As Wuster and Schleip post here regularly and they can see  from the
attached image (one of many) that their ill-conceived attack on the
nomenclature code is not having the unanimous support they allege ...
people still use the proper names, I ask them to formally and publicly
renounce their group's name Malayopython in order to create stability
for users of the taxonomy and nomenclature.
I note that the species involved, is a high conservation significance
..... here's waiting!
All the best

Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322
0412 777 211

--The Royal B
otanic Garden Edinburgh is a c 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list