[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 14:29:26 CST 2016
The issue may not be "huge", but I think it is probably bigger than you indicate. There can be problems in determining "the earliest date on which all of the requirements have been met". Adding to this problem is the fact that many publishers are publishing print editions online ahead of actual print (sometimes by months). We have already seen Frank Krell suggest, quite erroneously in my view, that "March 2016" must be a mistake on the Cretaceous Research website. In fact, it is no mistake! They have published their March 2016 print edition online already, but it presumably won't be actually printed until March! One, I suppose only fairly minor problem, concerns the nominal year of publication for taxon names, which is frequently widely appended to the names (i.e., Aus bus Author, YEAR). It is now very hard to choose between one year and the next (if online versions are published in one year, but the print version isn't actually printed until the following year). Another problem is that many people have wasted a significant amount of time doing preregistrations on ZooBank that were in fact pointless. They thought that they were validly publishing online first! There are also issues relating to how easy it might be to make apparently retroactive edits on ZooBank, which cannot be (at least not publicly) datestamped (for example, what would happen if I now edited archive info into the Zoobank record for Systematic Entomology?) Regrettably, I think that in the rush to push through a Zootaxa optimised electronic amendment, the ICZN has created rather a confusing mess for many authors and publishers to try to deal with. BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his recent appointment as head of the ICZN (I would have thought that there was rather a big COI involved there, but apparently not...)
On Fri, 22/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 6:45 PM
Well, it's neither
new, nor huge*. But it is a problem, and it was a problem
that was recognized prior to the publication of the
Amendment, and one which the Commissioners have discussed
fundamental question that we do not have a definitive answer
for yet (even though we have an over-abundance of opinions),
is how to establish the date of publication for purposes of
priority, when the following dates are non-identical:
1) The date on which the
publication was registered in ZooBank.
The date of publication as stated in the ZooBank record.
3) The date of publication as stated in the
4) The date on which the first
electronic edition of the work was obtainable.
5) The date on which the ISSN or ISBN was added
to the ZooBank record.
6) The date on which
the Intended archive was added to the ZooBank record.
7) The date on which a revised version of the
electronic edition of the work was obtainable (e.g.,
containing evidence of registration).
date on which paper copies were obtainable.
There are other dates as well
(e.g., the date of publication as stated in the paper
edition of the work, etc.), but I hope you get the point
that it's not a simple issue, because there are many
possible dates associated with a given work.
So... which is the date of
publication for purposes of priority? Certainly, most
would agree that it cannot be prior to #4 (assuming the
above list is in chronological sequence). Certainly, not
after #8 (provided the paper edition meets all other
criteria of the code for paper-based publications). Most
Commissioners I have discussed this with agree that the
logical answer is, generally "the earliest date on
which all of the requirements have been
met". As #2 has no bearing on any article
in the Code, we can probably ignore that one. But all the
others are in potential play. One could argue (pretty
effectively, in fact), that while the Code requires
electronic works to include the date of publication to be
stated within the work itself, there is no requirement that
it be the *correct* date of publication. Indeed, if such a
requirement was, in fact, part of the Code (or how the Code
is interpreted), stability would most likely suffer.
Until there is clarity on this
issue, either by Declaration, Amendment, formal statement,
or ratified 5th Edition by the Commission, it seems to me
(and most others I've discussed it with), that the
trusty "the earliest date on which all of the
requirements have been met" approach seems the most
logical to use as a guideline.
*The reason it's not a "huge"
issue is that it ultimately affects date of publication for
purposes of priority; and while there may be a few cases
where potentially competing names both fall within the
"grey zone", there certainly aren't many.
> From: Stephen Thorpe
[mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:53
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
engel; Doug Yanega
> Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online
published - one new species
> Doug (CC Rich),
> I think we may have just stumbled upon a
huge problem: "the ZooBank
registration state both the name of an electronic archive
> preserve the work and
> I have
always assumed that the publisher does this, once for each
> Certainly Magnolia Press does
it for Zootaxa (not surprisingly, perhaps, since
> the whole electronic amendment is arguably
optimised for Zootaxa). How
authors think to worry about the archive when registering
> ZooBank? Bugger all!
Looking at some random records on ZooBank, I'm now
> worried that a large number of them fail
this requirement! I think we need
clarification here (Rich?)
> On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
"engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
> Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016,
1/21/16 1:03 PM,
> Stephen Thorpe
> > It is worth
> noting that Michael Engel did
preregister his article (twice
actually!) on ZooBank:
> > 18 October 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/A6A94078-42E5-48B8-
[Record not publicly viewable]
> November 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/ADFE8605-38F3-45C6-
> > It would therefore
> appear to be the fault of the journal
(Cretaceous Research) editorial team
that no ZooBank registration was indicated in the
publication, and very
> unfortunate in
this case since it the same taxon was apparently
> described as new by Pohl
& Beutel shortly after!
> It is not just this one thing that
causes the name to be unavailable.
There are *three*
> requirements under
the present ICZN, and the Engel et al. online paper
> failed to comply with *two* of them, not
just one. Note the following
> " The requirements for
> electronic publications are that the
work be registered in ZooBank before it
> is published, that the work itself
state the date of publication and contain
> evidence that registration has occurred,
and that the ZooBank registration
both the name of an electronic archive intended to
preserve the work
> and the ISSN or
with the work."
> The online version of this
> work fulfills the first of these
criteria, but neither of the latter two.
> Doug Yanega Dept.
> of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of
> Riverside, CA
> 92521-0314 skype:
> phone: (951) 827-4315
(disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> "There are some
> in which a careful
is the true method" - Herman Melville,
Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be searched at:
> Celebrating 29
> Taxacom in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom