[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 14:00:20 CST 2016

Nevertheless, the ZooBank registration record ( http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F ) now misleadingly appears, to anyone trying to verify the details for these names, like valid online publication on 4 January 2016. This is not good! There may be a case for editing the "date published" field on the Zoobank record to 23 January 2016, but still to anyone cross referencing the details with those stated in the work itself, this will just look like an error.

In retrospect, it is now clear to me that the contents of Zoobank records should have been designed to be fixed (unchangeable) after creation (with new records created in order to fix errors).

To further reinforce my earlier comments that the electronic amendment was drafted both in haste and in Zootaxa optimised fashion, I draw your attention to the following excerpt from the Code: 

Example under Art. The following are examples of inadmissible errors: An author, in preparing a manuscript for publication, states that days date for the registration date, intending to register it later that day but forgetting to do so. The author discovers the omission after the work is published and immediately registers it; because registration occurred after publication, the work is not available.

Is it just me, or does this make no sense whatsoever? Author "states that days date for the registration date" WHERE??


On Mon, 25/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 8:42 AM
 I can confirm that the
 Archive was added to this record at 2016-01-23 12:21:46.330
 UTC, by the same login account that created the original
 registration.  Following the principle that the work
 becomes available when all requirements are fulfilled (see
 my previous email reply to Laurent on this list), and
 assuming all other requirements for publication are met, my
 interpretation would be that the date of publication for
 purposes of priority should be 23 January 2016. If numerous
 copies of the paper edition were simultaneously obtainable
 prior to this date, and if the paper edition is in
 compliance with the Code for published works printed on
 paper, then the date of publication for purposes of priority
 should be interpreted as the date on which numerous copies
 of the printed edition were simultaneously obtainable (see
 Art. 21.9).
 What is, or is
 not visible through the ZooBank website is irrelevant. The
 Code makes reference to content in the Official Register of
 Zoological Nomenclature, only a subset of which is visible
 on the website itself.  Future versions of the ZooBank
 website (pending development support) will include more
 robust and publicly visible documentation of when specific
 items were added or amended.
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:25 AM
 > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 Doug Yanega
 > Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important
 note Re: two names online published - one
 > new species
 > Doug,
 > I'm not sure that this was at all
 helpful! The addition of the archive info isn't
 > date stamped (at least not for public
 view). Now the record misleadingly
 looks like valid online first publication on 4 January
 > http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
 > As far as I know,
 the print edition may not be published yet (all we know
 > that it is the January 2016 print
 issue, which could be published in February
 > for all we know). So there may be no way
 to determine the true date of
 availability for the new names. Even if we can get a
 definitive date on the
 > hard copy, this
 doesn't help much, unless it is on or before 4 January
 > Stephen
 > On Sun, 24/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >  Subject:
 [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -
 > new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 "engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
 >  Received: Sunday, 24 January, 2016, 7:34
 >  I sent a
 note to the authors of the
 Kinzelbachilla paper (who had not
 been CCed before as Mike Engel had), and they said they
 have  fixed the
 > ZooBank record so it
 now includes the archive. Accordingly,  for the  public
 > record, if we follow the guideline as Rich
 suggested,  all of the  criteria for
 availability have now been fulfilled for the  name in
 their  work.
 Most interesting of all, however, if that they disagree 
 regarding these  two
 > papers describing
 the same taxon, despite both being  from  essentially
 > same type of amber deposit:
 >  "By the way,
 it is not the same thing, the eyes, for  instance, are 
 > different."
 >  In other words,
 this may not be a matter of competing for  priority, 
 after all,
 > as Hans had originally
 >  --
 >  Doug Yanega      Dept. of
    Entomology Research Museum
 >  Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
 >     skype:
 >  phone: (951) 827-4315
 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
 >                http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
 >     "There are some
 enterprises in which a  careful disorderliness
 >           is the true
 method" -
 >  Herman Melville, Moby
 Dick, Chap. 82
 >  Taxacom Mailing List
 >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduhttp://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >  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