[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jan 8 17:24:04 CST 2015
> Consider the following sequence of events:
> No tears, no droopy eyelids, no issues with publication date, ICZN code
> It's not difficult.
I agree, this example seems to be in compliance with the Code. I have entered the date in ZooBank as 11 Sep 2014. However, the "date" that is stated in the work itself is, as far as I can see from the free preview online version, simply "2014". That's fine, and in compliance with the Code (Art. 8.5.2), and as with paper-published works, establishing a more precise/accurate date for purposes of priority can involve evidence external to the work itself (e.g., the date indicate don the website).
This comes back to the point made by Laurent:
> The "date of publication" can only be June 16, because
> this is the date that is stated in the work. If there is evidence
> that the work did not "become available by purchase or free
> distribution" on June 16, the work does not "state the date
> of publication" (in the sense of the Glossary) "in the work itself".
> Thus the work is not "to be considered published".
So... when the date, as stated in the work itself, is "2014" (note that there are no requirements for how precise the date must be), then is the date for purposes of priority 1 January 2014, 31 December 2014, or some other particular day? When we have information external to the work itself that allows a more precise representation of the date that appears in the work itself, may we use that information for establishing the date of publication for purposes of priority?
P.S. Note that my post was not about any specific case, it was prompted by issues raised in the long thread that I responded to.
More information about the Taxacom