[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 16:17:12 CST 2016
>That is not correct. As I made clear in my email, everyone has access to those logs. Just not via the website<
Then where? I would like to see.
>You're focusing on the small problem, and ignoring the larger problem -- which is that there is not yet a formal determination on how the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined (see my previous email)
No, I'm not at all "focusing on the small problem"! I was simply using it as a specific example of the bigger problem. This thread has always been about that bigger problem. But the problem isn't quite as simple as you imply above. There is absolutely no problem at all for "formal determination on how the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined" IF we are talking about Zootaxa (or the few others, like ZooKeys, who followed the Zootaxa publishing model). It is blindingly obvious that the electronic amendment was optimised for the Zootaxa publishing model, arguably without giving due consideration to other publishing models. I'm really not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I'm not suggesting levels of corruption to rival FIFA or whatever! I'm just saying that an ICZN commissioner (and certainly 'a' or 'the' secretary general) should act in the best interests of zoological nomenclature, representing all stake holders (publishers, authors, readers) without favour or bias. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with any commissioner who is also owner of a major zoological publishing house. Why would you not think that they would (even subconsciously) give more weight to their own best interests?
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, 10:54 AM
> This illustrates my
point. Currently (and probably for a good while yet to
> come) only you (plus maybe one or two
selected others?) have access to
That is not
correct. As I made clear in my email, everyone has access
to those logs. Just not via the website.
> Combined with your unrestricted editing
rights as "Zoobank
this gives you the power (which I have no reason to think
> have or would use, I'm
just talking hypothetically here) to "rewrite
> making hidden
retroactive changes to registration details.
Yes, this is correct - I do
have the ability to edit the timestamp field in the EditLog
Table, if I chose to do so. However, what I do not have
the ability to do is change the EditLogID value for each
record. This is assigned by the database automatically and
in chronological sequence. Thus, any effort to tamper with
the time-stamp values (by me, or by anyone else) would be
immediately discoverable due to a mis-match between the
chronology of the timestamp values and the EditLogID
values. Moreover, the database is replicated, so there is
a lower-level record of transaction logs managed by the
databse itself, that I would not only need to know how to
manipulate (I don't) but also be able to manipulate on
all the replicated servers. In short, although it may be
technically possible to tamper with the editlog timestamp
values in a way that would be difficult to discover, I
suspect that the effort to do so would be rather substantial
-- far more so than what I (or anyone else) has time to
> Anyway, if I
> edit the record for Systematic
Entomology, in order to introduce archiving
> data, you might have access to those logs,
but would you in fact notice?
> Would a
big red flashing light and siren alert you to this? My point
here is just
> that details on ZooBank
which determine the availability of published taxon
> names do not seem to me to be entirely
secure or immutable. This is
something of a side issue.
You're focusing on the small problem, and
ignoring the larger problem -- which is that there is not
yet a formal determination on how the date of availability
for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined (see
my previous email). Moreover, the difference between an
un-verified registration record (i.e., all records in
ZooBank), and a verified record (on which editing
restrictions will be imposed) has not yet been defined.
So, perhaps you might consider
re-directing your activities from the items I listed in the
"unhelpful" catgory, and instead focused on the
"helpful" actions, we can have a more productive
How do YOU think the date of availability for
purposes of nomenclatural priority should be defined (see my
criteria do YOU think should be important for including in
the record verification process?
How do YOU think that process should be
What do YOU think
the process for amending verified records should be?
I'm not trying to bait
you. These are legitimate questions.
More information about the Taxacom