[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 15:03:29 CST 2016


I'm going to have to reply to some of your comments individually. Firstly: 

>Finally, can you elaborate on what you mean by this statement:
>"BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his recent appointment as head of the ICZN"

This is what I mean: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about/news/snippets/researcher-in-nz-first

Looks like I do know something that you don't! :)


On Sat, 23/1/16, 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: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 9:55 AM
 Hi Stephen,
 Let me clarify... I scale the
 magnitude of the issue using a baseline of paper-based
 publications and/or the situation as it existed prior to the
 amendment for electronic publication.  I often see lots of
 frantic arm-waving and other forms of virtual panic about
 one crisis or another related to electronic publication. 
 To be sure, there are some new problems that have been
 introduced with the Amendment, and CERTAINLY the Amendment
 did not solve all of the problems that existed before it
 (nor could it have).  As Doug has already alluded to, the
 Amendment represents a compromise between many different
 possible approaches, and ultimately reflects the best
 consensus of the community at the time.
 One thing the Amendment has done is shine a
 spotlight on problems that have existed for a long time, but
 which people scarcely noticed before.  That they went
 unnoticed before doesn't mean that they were any less
 serious before; only that many of us were blissfully
 ignorant.  One might argue that an "ignorance is
 bliss" approach is warranted, but it seems incompatible
 to basic scientific principles that we taxonomists would
 generally like to adhere to.
 So, here are some examples of things that are
 - Specific observations about how
 the existing rules fail in particular circumstances
 - Constructive suggestions on how the next
 edition of the Code can be improved to minimize such
 And here are some
 examples of things that are not helpful:
 Frantic arm-waving and hyperbolic exclamations about how the
 nomenclatural sky is falling.
 Misrepresentation of problems with the Code that have been
 illuminated by the Amendment for electronic publication as
 though they were *caused* by the Amendment (when in most
 cases they were, in fact, extant prior to the Amendment, and
 in many cases at least mitigated to some extent by the
 - Representing personal
 interpretations about how the Code "should" be,
 with what is actually written in the Code.
 Utterly bogus (and, frankly,  childish) accusations that
 the Amendment was somehow nefariously influenced by the
 needs/demands of the for-profit publishing community.
 Note: Stephen, I am not
 necessarily accusing you of all these things; but I've
 seen examples of them fly through Taxacom and other venues
 on a regular basis.
 answer to some of your specific questions: every edit to
 every record in ZooBank is logged with information on what
 field was changed, what the previous and new values are, who
 changed them, and exactly (to the nearest millisecond, UTC
 time) when the change was made. So, for example, if you
 edited archive info into the Zoobank record for Systematic
 Entomology, there would be a record of the fact that you
 edited it, and exactly when you edited it. Not all of this
 information is visible on the ZooBank website, but as soon
 as we receive the next round of ZooBank development funding,
 much of it will be added. In the meantime, I am happy to
 retrieve and provide this information for any field of any
 Finally, can you
 elaborate on what you mean by this statement:
 "BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his
 recent appointment as head of the ICZN"
 Either you
 know something that I don't, or this serves as one more
 example reflecting the reliability of your insights on the
 ICZN and its functions.
 Thanks, and Aloha,
 Richard L.
 Pyle, PhD
 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
 > -----Original
 > From: Stephen Thorpe
 [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:29 AM
 > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 'engel'; 'Doug Yanega';
 deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online
 published - one new species
 > 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
 > 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
 > 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
 > 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
 > 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...)
 > Stephen
 > On Fri, 22/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 >  Subject:
 RE: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new
 >  To: "'Stephen
 Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>,
 > Yanega'"
 <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >  Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 6:45
 >  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  several times.
 >  The
 >  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
 >  2)
 The date of publication as stated in the ZooBank record.
 >  3) The date of publication as stated in
 the  work itself.
 >  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
 >  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).
 >  8) The
 >  date on which paper copies were
 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
 > 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 
 > have been met"
 approach seems the most  logical to use as a guideline.
 >  Aloha,
 >  Rich
 >  *The reason it's not a
 >  issue is that it
 ultimately affects date of publication for  purposes of
 > and while there may be a few
 cases  where potentially competing names
 > both fall within the  "grey
 zone", there certainly aren't many.
 >  > -----Original
 >  Message-----
 >  >
 From: Stephen Thorpe
 >  [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 >  > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016
 11:53  AM  > 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 
 intended to  > preserve the work and  ..."
 >  >
 >  > I
 >  always assumed that the
 publisher does this, once for each  journal?
 >  > Certainly Magnolia Press does
 >  it for Zootaxa (not surprisingly,
 perhaps, since  > the whole electronic
 > amendment is arguably  optimised for
 Zootaxa). How  > many  authors think
 > to worry about the archive when
 registering  articles on  > 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  > some
 > clarification here (Rich?)  >  >
 Stephen  >  >
 >  > On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >  wrote:
 >  >
 >  >  Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new 
 species  >  To:
 > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, 
 "engel" <msengel at ku.edu> 
 >  Received:
 > Friday, 22 January,
 >  10:17 AM
 >  >  On
 1/21/16 1:03 PM,
 >  >  Stephen
 >  wrote:
 >  > 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-
 >  > B602-49DA7D0523F6
 >  >
 >  [Record not
 publicly viewable]
 >  >  >
 >  13
 >  > 
 November 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/ADFE8605-38F3-45C6-
 >  > B686-5094367C9695
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >  > 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
 > validly  > 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  > (from
 >  http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-
 > amendment-
 >  >
 >  >
 >  " 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  > state  both the name
 of an  electronic  archive intended to
 > preserve the work  > and the ISSN or 
 ISBN  >  >  associated  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
 Research  Museum  Univ. of  California,  > Riverside,
 > >  92521-0314 
 >  dyanega
 >  >  phone: (951) 827-4315
 >  (disclaimer: opinions are  mine, not
 > >               
 >  >     "There are
 >  enterprises
 >  >  in which a careful
 >  disorderliness
 >  >
    is the true method" - Herman Melville, 
 Moby Dick, Chap. 82  >  >
 >  >  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