[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 25 14:01:06 CST 2016
>Once we get this publication date business sorted out, we can move on to the next "big" question related to electronic publication ...<
Shouldn't all this "business" have been "sorted out" *before* the Amendment was issued?? People are here debating fine points (but nonetheless crucial points) of the Code for which there are no determinate answers. There are no answers to be worked out, there are only decisions to be made. Only the ICZN can make those decisions, and it should have already done so *before* the Amendment was issued!
On Tue, 26/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: "'engel'"'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 2:01 AM
> A new publication
(meeting the requirements of Article 8) is required for
> 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"
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
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....
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