[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Laurent Raty l.raty at skynet.be
Sat Jan 23 14:39:04 CST 2016

Hi Rich,

On 01/23/2016 12:23 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> If so, which date should be taken as the earlier date?
> For reference, a sample of dates is presented below:
> 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.

I remain somewhat perplexed by the fact that these discussions tend to 
focus on personal opinion, without taking any the actual Code into 
account at all...

I already wrote this her I think, but still... The only prominent 
definition of "date of publication" in the Code is in the Glossary. It 

"date of publication, n.
Of a work (and of a contained name and nomenclatural act): the date on 
which copies of the work become available by purchase or free 
distribution. If the actual date is not known, the date to be adopted is 
regulated by the provisions of Article 21.2-7."

(*Maybe* this definition should have been amended. But it wasn't, and I 
don't feel I can dismiss a provision in a legal text on the mere account 
that I *think* that it would have been better had it been different. 
Surely, at the very least, ther should be some "better reason"...?)

This dictates that your answer is #4. (Assuming the "edition" contained 
evidence of registration. If it didn't, a case for #7 might be done, but 
#7 is arguably also the #4 of a new work. The evidence of registration 
can't be assumed not to be part of the "content" -- the work must 
"contain" it as per 8.5.3, or it is unpublished.) What the ZooBank 
record does or doesn't include determines only *whether* the act of 
making a pre-registered work obtainable electronically on this date was 
"a publication", or not. If it was one, it happened on the date it happened.

Could you explain on which account you discard the above ?

Laurent -

More information about the Taxacom mailing list