[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jan 8 02:44:58 CST 2015


All,

Alas, my eyes began to water and the eyelids began to droop while trying to read through this thread.  I'm not sure how much has been addressed, and what the main points of the debate are, but the thread does touch on a couple of "actual" issues (as opposed to violent arm-waving).

Issue #1: establishing date of publication for purposes of priority.

Consider the following sequence of events:

1. June 1 2014: A journal exposes a PDF for a work containing the description of a new animal species name online as an "early view".  It does not contain a ZooBank registration for the work, and the work has not yet been registered in ZooBank.
2. June 5 2014: The work is registered in ZooBank, but the ZooBank registration does not include an ISSN or indication of an online archive. The publication date in ZooBank is entered as "2014".
3. June 10 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include an ISSN number for the Journal.
4. June 15 2014: A revised version of the PDF, which includes the ZooBank registration number, is posted online. It declares the publication date (within the PDF) to be June 16 2014.
5. June 20 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include the intended archive for the work.
6. June 25 2014: The publication date entered in ZooBank record is updated as June 22 2014.
7. June 30 2014: Numerous identical copies of a paper-printed edition of the work are obtainable.
8. January 5 2015: The publisher uploads a copy of the PDF to the indicated Archive.

So.... what is the date of publication (in the sense of the ICZN Code, for purposes of priority)?

June 20 is the earliest date on which all criteria had been met. However, some have argued that one cannot update a ZooBank record and thereby make an electronic edition available; therefore the date or publication (in the sense of the ICZN) should be 30 June (when the paper edition is published).  Others have argued that the date of publication for purposes of priority should be the date on which the first electronic version of the work itself was obtainable (June 15th, in this case), even though the ZooBank record was later amended to include the requirements (that is, even though the work was not available from June 15-June 20 due to the missing archive indication in ZooBank, once the ZooBank record is corrected, the date of publication for purposes of priority reverts to the date of obtainability of the work itself).  Does the date as it appears on the work itself carry any meaning for purposes of priority?  The Code requires that electronic editions include the date of publication, but it's not clear whether the stated date has any more relevance to the date of publication in the sense of the ICZN Code than stated dates of paper-printed works.  Finally, does the date entered in the ZooBank record have any bearing on the actual date of publication? Or is it only have meaning after a verification system for ZooBank is in place?

A couple points:  
- There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the preceding paragraph.
- Item #8 in the list above is irrelevant.  The Code does not require that the electronic work actually be deposited in an Archive; only that the ZooBank record indicates the intended archive.
- All of these problems disappear if we establish a system whereby registered = available (with traditional "publication" being an optional, perhaps recommended practice, but not part of the requirements)

Issue #2: Homonyms aplenty?

When works are published in both electronic and paper editions, and the electronic edition is unambiguously in compliance with the Code, how much difference must there be in terms of content between the paper edition and the electronic edition before the two are considered separate works?  Addition of page numbers?  Changes in formatting? Correction of typos?  Addition of substantial text? Change of authorship? Alteration of the spelling of a new name?  Addition (or removal) of a new name? Changing of a type specimen designation of a new name?  The works are never "identical" because one is ink on paper, and the other is an electronic binary file. The issue is that there is broad continuum between examples where we would all agree the two editions are of the "same" work, and examples where we would all agree the two editions represent distinct works.  But we don't have a clear idea of where along that continuum we would start regarding the works as different, and the names contained in them as synonymous homonyms.

A couple points:  
- There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the preceding paragraph.
- All of these problems disappear if we establish a system whereby registered = available.

Aloha,
Rich




More information about the Taxacom mailing list