[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jan 8 17:24:09 CST 2015
> In the example given by Richard Pyle I have no doubt that publication only
> occurs with the paper version.
> Art. 8.5 presents requirements for publication, and
> 8.5.3 requires that at the moment of publication it must be registered, with the
> requirements of 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, and 18.104.22.168 having been met. Any attempt to
> read it differently pretty much negates the whole idea of having a Code in the
> first place.
Yes, I agree. But the question is ... what is the "moment of publication"? All you have done here is suggest that the date cannot be June 15 2014 (when the post-registration version of the electronic edition was obtainable). But the Code does not say what the sequence of events should be (except for 8.1.2., which says that the work must be obtainable free of charge or by purchase "when first issued" -- whatever that means....). If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that, because a PDF was obtainable prior to when the work was available (i.e., prior to when the requirements of Art. 8.5 had been fulfilled), it somehow disqualifies any electronic edition, and thereby forces the work to be available only from a paper-printed edition. I don't see where in the Code that is stated, or even implied. All aspects of the Code were fulfilled in my hypothetical example on June 15. Why isn't June 15 regarded as the "moment of publication" in your view?
> As to the paper that started this thread, the important issue that remains is
> indeed the question of what is going to be archived, in the line of 22.214.171.124. Is this
> going to be the work that made the nomenclatural act available, or is it going
> to be something that for the purposes of the publisher is the same ...
As I stated in my email, what actually gets deposited in the archive is irrelevant, because the Code does not require that anything actually be archived. I think a strong case can be made that the Code implies that the work must be archived, but currently that is not what the Code actually says. Note that the wording of Art. 126.96.36.199 was not an accident or an oversight: it was very deliberately worded the way it is.
> The argument that no serious publisher would alter the contents of a work is
> not all that helpful. Is every user of a name going to have to decide "Oh, this
> name was not published by a serious publisher, so I am not going to take it into
> account"; this sounds like a sure way to create chaos.
On this point I completely agree.
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
More information about the Taxacom