[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Fri Jan 22 15:32:42 CST 2016


Well, actually, if you consult the Constitution and By-Laws of the ICZN 
there is no such thing as a Secretary-General, so a person with that 
title cannot actually be head of anything.  Stephen, don't believe 
everything you read on the internet!.

Mike

On 1/22/2016 2:29 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Well, the article I linked to states [quote]One of his top priorities in his new job would be to ensure the commission’s long term viability[unquote]
>
> So, what does the president do, then?
>
> It is really splitting hairs to criticize my use of the vague term "head of"! It is near enough to make my point.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 23/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
>   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:10 AM
>   
>   Isn't the head of the ICZN a
>   President?  Did someone change the By-Laws?
>   
>   On 1/22/2016 2:03 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>   > Rich,
>   >
>   > 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! :)
>   >
>   > Stephen
>   >
>   > --------------------------------------------
>   > 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
>   >   helpful:
>   >   - 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
>   >   failures
>   >
>   >   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
>   >   Amendment).
>   >   - 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.
>   >
>   >   In
>   >   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
>   >   record.
>   >
>   >   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,
>   >   Rich
>   >
>   >
>   >   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
>   >   http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   > -----Original
>   >   Message-----
>   >   > 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
>   >   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...)
>   >   >
>   >   > Stephen
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   > 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
>   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
>   >   ZooBank.
>   >   >  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
>   >   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).
>   >   >  8) The
>   >   >  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.
>   >   >
>   >   >  Aloha,
>   >   >  Rich
>   >   >
>   >   >  *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.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >  > -----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
>   >   have
>   >   >  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,
>   >   2016,
>   >   >  10:17 AM
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >  >  On
>   >   >
>   >   1/21/16 1:03 PM,
>   >   >  >  Stephen
>   >   Thorpe
>   >   >  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-
>   >   >  >
>   >   code):
>   >   >  >
>   >   >
>   >   >  " 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.
>   >   >  >
>   >   >  >
>   >   Sincerely,
>   >   >  >
>   >   >  >  --
>   >   >  >
>   >   Doug Yanega      Dept.
>   >   >  >  of
>   >   Entomology
>   >   >
>      Entomology
>   >   Research  Museum  Univ.
>   of  California,  > Riverside,
>   >   CA
>   >   > >  92521-0314
>   >      skype:
>   >   >  dyanega
>   >   >  >  phone: (951)
>   827-4315
>   >   >  (disclaimer: opinions
>   are  mine, not
>   >   UCR's)
>   >   > >
>   >   http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   >   >  >
>      "There are
>   >   some
>   >   >  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.
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > 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.
>   
>   --
>   __________________________________________________
>   
>   Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>   
>   US Post Office Address:
>   Montana Entomology Collection
>   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   1911 West Lincoln Street
>   Montana State University
>   Bozeman, MT 59717
>   USA
>   
>   UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
>   Montana Entomology Collection
>   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   1911 West Lincoln Street
>   Montana State University
>   Bozeman, MT 59718
>   USA
>   
>   
>   (406) 994-4610 (voice)
>   (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>   mivie at montana.edu
>   
>   _______________________________________________
>   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.
>
> .
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu




More information about the Taxacom mailing list