[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
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
> 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
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.
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)
some difficult to determine time after 1 Jan 2015, then my
> 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
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