[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Jan 21 14:07:18 CST 2016

This is a zoonomenclaturally relevant issue, with precedence in relation 
to electronic publication and zoobank issues as main topics.
For this kind of questions I would recommend to post this case also on 
the [iczn-list] mailing list, for there may be list members with 
nomenclatural skills who are not on the [Taxacom] list.

(I have nothing to add to the explanations by Doug and Thomas.)


Am 21.01.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Hans Henderickx:
> The following two publications were almost simultanously published in  January 2016 concerning the same fossil species but based on two different  specimens from Burmese amber (Strepsiptera).
>   The publication of Engel was already available online 13 November 2015  (noted in the publicaton: www.elsevier.com/locate/CretRes), but it's reference in the publication (for the printed version I suppose) says 2016.
>   The Pohl publication was also registered in ZOOBANK
> *  Engel, M. et al. (2016) A new twisted-wing parasitoid from mid-Cretaceous
>   amber of Myanmar (Strepsiptera). Cretaceous Research
>   ((http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008)
>   -and-
> *  Pohl, H. (2016) Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri - a new ancestral
>   species, genus and family of Strepsiptera (Insecta)(DOI: 10.1111/syen.12158)
>   http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:
>   zoobank.org:pub:07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
>   Wich publication has priority here, and wich name is valid? Engel's publication was online published and registered by Elsevier two months earlyer (2015), so the name proposed in this publication Phthanoxenos nervosus looks to have priority rights.
> However, according the ICZN about online publishing the names in an online publication are only 'legally' registered after registration in ZooBank.
> See http://iczn.org/node/40562 . Until than the publication should be considered as 'non valid' and the names as 'unavailable'
> see:
> http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-amendment-code
> http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3096
> In that case, taken in consideration the ZooBank instruction, only Pohl's publication is legally valid, with another species name in this case: Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri. However, Elsevier has registered Engel's publication  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008. before (2015) and ZooBanks' profile as 'monopoly concerning registrations' could be considered as illegal concurrence. Space for discussion here it looks to me, I am interested in the opinion of the list members.
>   Hans Henderickx
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list