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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Jan 25 07:01:30 CST 2016

> A new publication (meeting the requirements of Article 8) is required for the
> name to become available.

Hmm... not sure I follow.  Let's assume the work itself was complete for all requirements for e-Publication on 4 Jan, but the ZooBank record was not complete (e.g., missing Archive) until 23 Jan. Are you saying that the work is published in the sense of the Code on 23 Jan?  Or are you saying a "new publication" is required?  If you follow the logic of Laurent (as I do), then the work was not published in the sense of the Code from Jan 4 up until Jan 22, because the requirements for publication were not met until Jan 23. Before that date, the work was not published in the sense of the Code.  Hence, no need for a "new" publication.

The only uncertainty (in my mind, anyway) is how to interpret and apply the term "issued" as it is used in various articles of the Code.  For example, Art. 8.1.2. says that a work "must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase".  It refers to the unqualified "work", not "published work".  So, in the example above, was it "first issued" on 4 Jan, or on 23 Jan (in the sense of the Code)?  Presumably it would have been obtainable free of charge or by purchase on both dates; but it can only have been "first issued" on one date. Having looked at all of the articles that include the word "issued", I'm reasonably certain we're still OK following the "date of publication is the date on which all criteria are met" approach, even with the "issued" business.  But I can also see how some might argue otherwise.

Once we get this publication date business sorted out, we can move on to the next "big" question related to electronic publication: how best to apply Art. 9.9. Lots of thorny semantics in that one....


More information about the Taxacom mailing list