[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 17:52:14 CST 2016

>If so, which date should be taken as the earlier date?

The date that just about everybody assumes is the date of availability, i.e. the first online publication which isn't indicated to be provisional in content, which contains (in the work itself) evidence of ZooBank preregistration, and which contains (in the work itself) something which can be reasonably interpreted as "the publication date" (albeit incomplete and/or wrong). This shows that a big effort was made to ensure online first availability, so failure to comply with archiving requirements (statements thereof, rather than actual archiving) should not be allowed to negate this. Sure, if there is a print edition, the names will become available then anyway, but that might be in a different nominal year (we want to be able to cite the correct year as part of the name), and someone else could publish on the same taxa in the meanwhile (which, by my understanding, was really the only reason for preregistration of online first articles in cases where a print edition follows!) But then, this was never a problem for Zootaxa, though I'm not entirely certain these days exactly when the print edition of even Zootaxa is published (maybe at the completion of each volume made up of parts, rather than simultaneously with the online publication of each part?)

I am only concerned here with the situation whereby archiving is the only failed requirement for valid online publication. Other problems may require other solutions.


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, 12:23 PM
 Thanks, Stephen!  This
 is starting to feel a bit more useful.
 > No, I am saying that failures of
 availability due only to the lack of
 specification of an electronic archive on a ZooBank record
 should be
 > retrospectively quashed if
 the journal published a print edition, and the
 > requirement should be dropped for such
 OK, understood. But
 if the Journal published a print edition, then presumably
 the work is already available from the print edition. Or,
 are you saying that the ICZN Commission should
 retrospectively change the date of availability for purposes
 of nomenclatural priority to a date earlier than when the
 print edition was obtainable?  If so, which date should be
 taken as the earlier date?
 For reference, a sample of dates is presented
 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
 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
 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
 > So, if I
 registered a new
 > name, but forgot about
 (or ignored) the archiving requirement, and the
 > paper was published on 1 Nov 2014, online
 first, in otherwise fully Code
 compliant fashion, but the print edition wasn't
 published (as a real hard copy)
 > until
 some difficult to determine time after 1 Jan 2015, then my
 new name
 > would be Aus bus Thorpe, 2014
 (Date of valid publication: 1 Nov 2014). 
 OK, that corresponds to #4 in
 the above list in cases where the electronic edition
 contained all the other requirements (e.g., evidence of
 registration within the work itself), or #7 in cases where a
 revised electronic edition included all the requirements. 
 This, of course, presumes that such dates precede the date
 on which the work might be considered available from the
 print edition.
 following your example, suppose you updated the ZooBank
 record to include an Archive on 1 Dec 2014.  Assuming all
 other requirements are met, then the general approach of
 "when all requirements are met" logic would
 suggest a date of availability as 1 Dec 2014 (again,
 assuming that was the last requirement to be fulfilled). 
 Under your suggestion of ICZN correction, the date of
 availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority would be
 pushed back to 1 Nov 2014?
 > If someone publishes a new name for the
 same taxon (let's say in a print
 journal) on 2 Nov 2014, then their new name is a junior
 synonym of mine.
 > The hard copy serves
 as an archive. We only need electronic archiving for e-
 > only journals.
 Note that archiving is not a requirement of the
 Code.  The only requirement is an indication of the
 intended archive in the ZooBank record for the work.
 > No, my mind is still open
 on this issue. It can be very difficult to determine if
 > and when each requirement is fulfilled.
 Indeed!  This has always
 been the case.  At least with ZooBank and the Amended Code,
 we have some reasonably precise and reliable dates to work
 with.  The ambiguity has always been the date of actual
 obtainability.  This was (and still is) MUCH more
 problematic for paper works than for electronic works, but
 still can be problematic for electronic works as well.
 > I think that there is a
 bigger case to
 > opt for a scenario along
 the lines of "if it looks like it should be
 > now, then it is available
 now". Publication dates should be made as easy as
 > possible to determine.
 Indeed! And that's why many of us support
 the "Registered=Available" (or
 "Registered=Published=Available") model, which
 would almost completely eliminate all ambiguity about the
 date of availability once and for all.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list