[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

John Noyes j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Mon Jan 25 03:36:22 CST 2016


I wonder about the Pohl paper. Is it really fully code compliant and available in the electronic version? I cannot find any specific date of publication stated on the work itself . . . unless of course you take the year that is published on the first page. In itself the stated year does not actually mean that it was published in that year (unless it is prefixed by "date of publication") and is the year alone really the date. If someone were to ask me the date of something that happened last year I probably would give the day and the month. It is controversial and some of us have discussed this before.  Personally I would apply strictly what the code says say that neither work is available until the printed versions are available but I know there will be some out there who disagree with me. 

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoidsĀ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Pape
Sent: 21 January 2016 19:59
To: Hans Henderickx; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

The Engel et al. paper is given as "Available online 13 November 2015". However, as correctly mentioned, it does not fulfil the Code requirements for electronic works regarding evidence in the work itself that registration in ZooBank has occurred. Therefore, the work is not to be considered published in the sense of the Code, and the nomenclatural acts in that paper are not validly proposed and as such not available. It seems that the print version is planned for March, at which time the work will be validly published and the nomenclatural acts become available.

Pohl & Beutel's paper seems to be fully Code compliant, which means that the nomencatural acts are available (given that all other requirements are also fulfilled).

So, in short: Pohl & Beutel's names are available and valid, and the names in Engel et al. are technically outside zoological nomenclature.

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Hans Henderickx
Sent: 21. januar 2016 20:13
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

The following two publications were almost simultanously published in  January 2016 concerning the same fossil species but based on two different  specimens from Burmese amber (Strepsiptera).
 The publication of Engel was already available online 13 November 2015  (noted in the publicaton: www.elsevier.com/locate/CretRes), but it's reference in the publication (for the printed version I suppose) says 2016. 
 The Pohl publication was also registered in ZOOBANK
 
*  Engel, M. et al. (2016) A new twisted-wing parasitoid from mid-Cretaceous  amber of Myanmar (Strepsiptera). Cretaceous Research
 ((http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008)
 
 -and-
 
*  Pohl, H. (2016) Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri - a new ancestral  species, genus and family of Strepsiptera (Insecta)(DOI: 10.1111/syen.12158)
 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid: 
 zoobank.org:pub:07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
 
 Wich publication has priority here, and wich name is valid? Engel's publication was online published and registered by Elsevier two months earlyer (2015), so the name proposed in this publication Phthanoxenos nervosus looks to have priority rights. 

However, according the ICZN about online publishing the names in an online publication are only 'legally' registered after registration in ZooBank.
See http://iczn.org/node/40562 . Until than the publication should be considered as 'non valid' and the names as 'unavailable'
see:
http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-amendment-code

http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3096

In that case, taken in consideration the ZooBank instruction, only Pohl's publication is legally valid, with another species name in this case: Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri. However, Elsevier has registered Engel's publication  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008. before (2015) and ZooBanks' profile as 'monopoly concerning registrations' could be considered as illegal concurrence. Space for discussion here it looks to me, I am interested in the opinion of the list members.



 
 Hans Henderickx
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://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.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://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