[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 17:54:03 CST 2015
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.
This was my point from before. Oddly, I can't now seem to find the bit that I thought was in the Code requiring Zoobank registration BEFORE publication! Art 8.5. (below) seems OK from this point of view:
8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must
8.5.1. have been issued after 2011,
8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and
8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred.
I'm going to have to give this some more thought. I'm sure there was something in the Code requiring preregistration, but I could be wrong (or else the content has been covertly changed by the publisher (ICZN)!)
But 8.5 now opens another can of worms. Now it looks like a forgotten ZooBank registration can be added in at any stage, thereby making a valid publication from the date of registration (provided that the LSID is added to the PDF on the same date)! Given that the date of publication cited in the work itself can be incomplete or incorrect, how can we tell when the Zoobank LSID was subsequently added to a PDF? How can we tell the valid publication date??
On Fri, 9/1/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 9 January, 2015, 12:24 PM
> 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
> 8.5.3 requires that at
the moment of publication it must be registered, with the
> requirements of 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, and
188.8.131.52 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
> As to the paper
that started this thread, the important issue that remains
> indeed the question of what is going
to be archived, in the line of 184.108.40.206. 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. 220.127.116.11
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
> account"; this sounds like
a sure way to create chaos.
On this point I completely agree.
Database Coordinator for Natural
Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety
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
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
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