[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 25 13:37:36 CST 2016
Nonsense! Apart from the bit about "a later alteration in ZooBank did not retroactively get it published on 4 Jan." That much is true.
The term 'publication' means what publishers mean when they claim to have published something. A taxon name may be published in that sense, but nevertheless fail to be made available in the sense of the Code. In such cases, we say that the name, although published, is not validly published.
On Mon, 25/1/16, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: "engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 9:40 PM
I am with Laurent Raty on
this issue. There is just
the one date of
publication (obviously, "valid publication"
is not part of the zoological Code at all).
If an electronically
distributed paper appeared on 4 Jan.
stated the date of publication to be 4 Jan. then, either
it was published (in the sense of the Code) on
4 Jan, or
it was not published at all. I
hope we agree that a later
ZooBank did not retroactively get it published
on 4 Jan. But it would be contrary to
everything in the Code,
to assume it was
published when the registration in ZooBank
was completed (23 Jan.). Compare Article 7
emphasizes that "a new scientific
name, but also [...] any
or information likely to affect nomenclature "
must be published if it is to count. An
alteration in ZooBank
does not constitute
publication (in the sense of the Code).
A new publication (meeting the requirements of
Article 8) is
required for the name to
More information about the Taxacom