[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Wed Apr 8 21:55:11 CDT 2015
Yes, that's true. Usages are happening of these names that are in limbo
before print. Once released out in the wild there's no going back.
However, under the Zoo Code they're not yet available. They're sort of
interim nomina nuda and don't yet enter formal nomenclature. There is a
risk for authors that actions in other fully compliant taxonomic papers
may gain priority over them.
WoRMS is about recording all aquatic names & evaluating their Code status.
My own practice for WoRMS polychaete edits is to record limbo new names in
the usual detail, but with an appropriate warning. I'll think hard before
implementing new synonymies before they're in print, although I can
mention they are pending. I'd rather not be doing this extra work, but I
am because a simple new Code recording mechanism isn't being adhered to by
Long term the ZooBank requirement may fail to take hold, but we aren't
there yet. It's been a surprise many authors and publishers just aren't
bothering with it. Ignorance or don't care? Suspect both. I've done my
bit talking about the need for ZooBank registration to peers. The paper
in prep on electronic works Frank Krell mentioned surely will raise
On Thu, April 9, 2015 12:41 pm, Michael Heads wrote:
> As you emphasized earlier, if the article was publically available on the
> net in 2014, in this day and age it's de facto published in 2014. It's
> natural that the author of the 2014 'internet names', doesn't see a
> problem, especially if they have grown up with the internet. If it is a
> problem for WoRMS then WoRMS need to change their rules. It is quite
> possible that I and other biogeographers, systematists, ecologists,
> conservationists etc. have already used the 'unpublished' 'internet names'
> from the Cladistics 2014 paper in our own publications - this is now
> standard practice.
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> Today I'm looking at an example of non-availability in Wiley's
>> 'Cladistics'. The article has been online unaltered since mid July
>> nine months ago, and is still unassigned to an issue. The pdf has no
>> publication date, and (of course) is unregistered in ZooBank. The
>> is quite oblivious of any problem I might have in including his intended
>> four new genera, correctly formally defined, as valid names in WoRMS.
>> I shall watch this one with interest to see what date the publisher
>> finally puts on it. Currently the apparent version of record is just
>> copyright 2014, which is obviously not going to be correct for
>> This scenario is so easily avoided. However, conversely we know what
>> happens to rules more ignored than complied with.
>> On Tue, April 7, 2015 5:14 pm, Frank T. Krell wrote:
>> > Geoff,
>> > yes, if there is no evidence for ZooBank registration in an electronic
>> > paper, it is not available for nomenclatural purposes. The
>> > acts will be available from the paper publication.
>> > My paper just dealt with the publication models, assuming that all
>> > criteria for availabilities are fulfilled.
>> > It now becomes increasingly obvious that a large number of editors is
>> > agnostic towards the criteria of availability. With co-commissioners
>> > Thomas Paper and Rich Pyle, I am currently preparing a paper
>> > what the "Works" are that need to be registered in order to be
>> > in electronic form.
>> > Electronic publication for nomenclatural purposes is still new. It is
>> > expected that everybody needs some time to adapt, and we do what we
>> > help.
>> > Cheers
>> > Frank
>> > Dr. Frank-T. Krell
>> > Curator of Entomology
>> > Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
>> > Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
>> > Department of Zoology
>> > Denver Museum of Nature & Science
>> > 2001 Colorado Boulevard
>> > Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
>> > Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>> > Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
>> > Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
>> > http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
>> > lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Geoff
>> > <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 11:01 PM
>> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>> > Dear Frank,
>> > I refer to your p25 "Cambridgeâs FirstView articles are available
>> for the
>> > purposes of zoological nomenclature.". The problem one for me and
>> > at WoRMS is 'Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the
>> > Kingdom' but I glanced at their 'Bulletin of Entomological Research'.
>> > 'publication model' at Cambridge may potentially conform as regards
>> > version of record, but as there is no ZooBank registration done by the
>> > editors, there is no availability until print unless authors are
>> > sufficiently aware to do it themselves and put it in the MS. Yet to
>> > one of those for JMBAUK.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Geoff Read
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
>> > Frank T. Krell
>> > Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2015 9:49 a.m.
>> > To: Taxacom (taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu)
>> > Subject: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>> > Hi all,
>> > In the last issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I
>> > paper scrutinizing major publishers' models for early online
>> > i.e. paper published on the web before they get integrated into a
>> > issue. I suggested a solution based on the NISO guidelines for
>> > on journal article versions. In short, I suggest that if the early
>> > publication is the Version of Record, it should be considered the
>> > version and nomenclaturally available. The paper can be downloaded
>> > (line two from below):
More information about the Taxacom