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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 16:12:17 CST 2016


Yes indeed, thanks, but I knew that. Actually it is not quite so simple: now that Zootaxa is structured by volume/part instead of issue, it is quite possible that volumes don't get printed until they are complete with all parts. Anyway, it is quite possibly not far away when Zootaxa does become e-only. The stage is set. At any stage Zootaxa may become e-only, and it will not change anything from the point of view of the online reader, and there will be no nomenclatural problems resulting from compliance with the amendment.



On Mon, 25/1/16, Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published	-one	new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:48 AM
 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>;
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
 "'Doug Yanega'" 
 <dyanega at ucr.edu>;
 "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:26 AM
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
 published -one 
 new species
 > Other publishers were no doubt consulted to some
 extent, yes. Neverthless, 
 > we have ended up in a situation whereby the electronic
 amendment is 
 > optimised to the Zootaxa publishing model, and many
 other publishers fall 
 > into a messy and indeterminate basket. Note that the
 Zootaxa publishing 
 > model wasn't created so as to be fully Code compliant
 with the electronic 
 > amendment. The Zootaxa model predates the amendment by
 several years. At 
 > the very least, Zhang had inside knowledge of what was
 going to result 
 > from the amendment well ahead of time, and thereby had
 an advantage over 
 > other publishers.
 > These are facts Frank. I cannot be wrong. Not unless
 you can offer a 
 > convincing alternative explanation as to why the
 electronic amendment fits 
 > Zootaxa hand in glove, while other publishers are left
 in a gray zone. 
 > Well?
 > Stephen
 That may well be the case or your interpretation of it, but
 it should be 
 pointed out that Zootaxa is Code compliant in publication of
 the printed 
 version, and is not an e-publication per se.
 On the FAQ page http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/pages/view/qna
 you can see
 "the print and online editions are published concurrently,
 as this is 
 important for taxonomic papers with new names. The official
 date of 
 publication will be clearly stated on the front page of each
 Simultaneous publication of the identical printed and pdf
 versions (except 
 that in the printed version colour photos are printed in
 black and white 
 unless paid for, and hyperlinks don't work on paper ;-) )
 means that the 
 real Code compliant version is the printed one, but the pdf
 is identical in 
 every way except as stated on the webpage.
 Zootaxa may register new taxa with Zoobank, but that
 registration has 
 nothing to do with conferring availability on the name(s) or
 complying with 
 the e-publication amendment.
 PS. Time for me to go to bed (nearly 5am here in Thailand -
 I am nocturnal 
 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