[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Jan 23 14:54:08 CST 2016
Rich is talking about the date of valid publication (=date of availability of the work and any new names and/or nomenclatural acts contained within). The Code glossary that you quote is rather about date of publication simpliciter. These are two different things.
On Sun, 24/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 24 January, 2016, 9:39 AM
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
> 2) The date of publication as stated in the ZooBank
> 3) The date of publication as stated in the work
> 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
> 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
account at all...
I already wrote this her I think, but still... The only
definition of "date of publication" in the Code is in the
"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
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
that I *think* that it would have been better had it been
Surely, at the very least, ther should be some "better
This dictates that your answer is #4. (Assuming the
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
can't be assumed not to be part of the "content" -- the work
"contain" it as per 8.5.3, or it is unpublished.) What the
record does or doesn't include determines only *whether* the
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 ?
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom