[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 7 19:01:22 CST 2015


PS: regarding the last bit of what I said, i.e. So they add the new LSID, and alter the claimed date of Online publication (in the work itself) to fit the registration date!

This might not appear to be a problem, but the Code is horribly unclear about this! The Code requires ZooBank registration BEFORE a work is electronically published (which may or may not be a bad wording of "to be validly published, a work must be ZooBank registered"). Therefore, if a work gets published electronically without preregistration on ZooBank, the Code seems to say that it can never be validly published (electronically, only in print), because we can't go back in time and preregister it!

In a nutshell, which troupe of monkeys wrote the amendment??

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 1:56 PM
 
 Doug: It sometimes
 happens that a publication is ZooBank registered before
 publication, but the publisher (or author) forgets to cite
 evidence of it in the work itself. They can secretly add it
 in after the fact, as if it was there all along. Similarly,
 and more importantly, with the date of publication, which
 also must be cited in the work itself. Similarly, there is a
 temptation to correct any errors in the Online First version
 before it goes to print. Even if the publisher did forget to
 preregister a publication on ZooBank, they might have
 already published it Online Early. So they add the new LSID,
 and alter the claimed date of Online publication (in the
 work itself) to fit the registration date!
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 8/1/15, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 Proofs for opinion
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 1:47
 PM
  
  On 1/7/15 4:34 PM,
  Stephen Thorpe wrote:
  >
 The problem,
  Donat, is that this is not
 formalised in the Code. I agree
  that it
 makes sense, and for pragmatic reasons I accept it,
  but there is still the problem of
 verification, i.e. that
  the publisher
 didn't try to "pull a fast one"
  by adding in a forgotten ZooBank LSID after
 the Early View
  version was first published
 online. Publishers don't
  like making
 mistakes, and sometimes try to hide them...
 
 >
  The registration in
 
 ZooBank is time-stamped. If a work is registered 
  retroactively (so the time stamp post-dates
 the
  date of publication), 
 
 then the electronic
  version is not
 considered published, and the 
 
 nomenclatural acts in it are available from the
  date of the print 
  version
 instead. If there
  is no print version at
 all AND a post-dated 
  registration, then
 there is no Code-compliant
  publication at
 all.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  --
  
  Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology 
       Entomology Research Museum
  Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
 92521-0314 
     skype: dyanega
  phone: (951)
  827-4315
 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
                http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
     "There are some enterprises
  in which a careful disorderliness
       
     is the true
 method" - Herman Melville,
  Moby Dick,
 Chap. 82
  
 
 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  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