[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe 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
 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
 > 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
 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
 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
 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
 Surely, at the very least, ther should be some "better
 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
 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
 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 -
 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 mailing list