[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Mon Jan 25 09:19:57 CST 2016
To be nitpicky does the date of publication have to be the actual date of publication or just the year or month and year and does it have to be preceded by "Date of publication"? Those angels are on the head of the pin again!!
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
London SW7 5BD
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):
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: 25 January 2016 15:12
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
I tried to avoid using big words. Article 8.5 states "To be considered published, a work issued and distributed
electronically must [...]
8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, "
This means that for a publication that states 4 Jan. as the date of publication, there is a one-day window in which the work must actually be published. And it can only be published if the ZooBank-entry is completely in order at that moment. Once the window has closed, it can no longer be published in a Code-compliant way. A new publication with a new date is necessary (although in this case the print run will likely take care of the problem, in the traditional way).
That is what the Code says, quite explicitly. And this does make sense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Cc: "'engel'"'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
> 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....
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2015.0.6176 / Virusdatabase: 4489/11398 - datum van uitgifte:
Interne Virusdatabase is verouderd.
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