[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 14:10:50 CST 2015

The fact that it is possible to do things relatively straightforwardly doesn't make all publishers do it that way. In other words, the fact that there are unproblematic cases doesn't negate the problematic cases. The only problem with your example is that the EV pdf gets trashed and replaced with the issue assigned version. This means we cannot verify that it was electronically published in a Code compliant way, we just have to trust the publisher. In this case, we may well trust the publisher, but the Code must apply to all publishers, and I have real misgivings about making the availalability of new names dependent on how much trust we have in the publisher.
On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Frank.Krell at dmns.org" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "pscranston at gmail.com" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 10:21 PM
 Consider the following
 sequence of events:
 following paper is currently an EV paper for Austral
 Entomology :
 A new species
 of gall midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) feeding on ornamental
 Cordyline fruticosa (Asparagaceae) in Australia
 It is accompanied by these
 URL:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aen.12120
 Publication History
  1.  Article first published
 online: 11 SEP 2014
  2.  Manuscript
 Accepted: 31 JUL 2014
 Version of record published on
 11 September 2014
 No tears, no droopy eyelids, no issues with
 publication date, ICZN code compliant.
 It's not difficult.
 Sent from my iPad
 On 8
 Jan 2015, at 7:44 pm, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
 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
 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
 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
 - 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
 Issue #2:
 Homonyms aplenty?
 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.
 couple points:
 - There are no correct
 answers to any of my questions in the preceding
 - All of these problems disappear
 if we establish a system whereby registered = available.
 This e-mail is solely for the
 named addressee and may be confidential. 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 that
 it is free from errors, virus or interference.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list