[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 7 17:57:24 CST 2015

Yes, that and ONLY THAT will definitively solve the problem, i.e. the ICZN needs to act and clarify the Code

On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Cc: "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 12:46 PM
 Thanks Stephen,
 Our hope is that the ICZN
 takes these comments and opinions on board and better
 defines the code.  We all want EV to be a valid publication
 - make it so.
 Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 10:43 AM
 To: Taxacom; Walker, Ken
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 Hi Ken (and list):
 Unfortunately, no matter how many people agree
 that something which they desire is so, it doesn't make
 it so. The issues here are vastly more complicated. The
 electronic amendment, I suggest, was tailored to the
 Magnolia Press publishing model, with minimal regard for any
 other. Hence, it is difficult to fit the Code around other
 publishing models. The main problem is that the Code fails
 to define what exactly is meant by a "preliminary
 version". The botanical code does spell this out
 (better), but that is of no direct relevance to zoology. So
 how can we argue the point here, when there is no definition
 of "preliminary version"? We surely can't just
 make up whatever definition suits our purposes? My own view
 is that, on pragmatic grounds, we must consider these
 "Early View" publications to be validly published
 (all other things being equal). The big problem which
 remains, though - and it is something that few people seem
 to understand - is that although
 published, how can we verify that they were indeed validly
 published. Answer: ONLY IF the EARLY VIEW version (PDF) has
 been archived and is accessible. As far as I can tell, if
 anything at all gets archived, it is the final paginated
 version. This could be a problem ...
 On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
  Subject: [Taxacom]
 Proofs for opinion
  To: "Taxacom"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 12:21
 opinion piece newly published in Systematic Entomology
  addresses recent discussion of the taxonomic
 validity of
  names appearing in Early View
 (that is, new names published
 electronically, prior to appearance in a journal issue).
  previous editors of the journal,
 Wiley's Publishing Manager
  and the 
 taxonomic editor of Austral Entomology combine
  to argue that Early View constitutes valid
  Eighteen senior systematists,
 the current editors, the
  former Executive
 Secretary, International Commission on
 Zoological Nomenclature and the former Publishing Manager
  Wiley journals endorse the opinion.
  The article is free access at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12119/pdf
  This e-mail is solely for the
 named addressee and may be
 You should only read, disclose, transmit,
 copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the
  contents if you are authorised to do so. If
 you are not the
  intended recipient of this
 e-mail, please notify postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au<mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au>
  by email immediately, or notify the sender and
 then destroy
  any copy of this message.
 Views expressed in this email are
  those of
 the individual sender, except where specifically
  stated to be those of an officer of Museum
 Victoria. Museum
  Victoria does not
 represent, warrant or guarantee that the
 integrity of this communication has been maintained nor
  it is free from errors, virus or
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list