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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 25 14:22:20 CST 2016

PS: Just to clarify one point, my interpretation of the Code is just as confused and lost as anyone else's. That was my point. The Code looks like something for which there should be determinate right or wrong interpretations, but in fact so much that is crucial (to the issue of online publishing) has been pushed through without sufficient thought, that there are no answers. The Code just doesn't address the issues. It glosses over such things as, for example, what is a preliminary version, etc. I cannot work out what the Code means because it doesn't mean anything!


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: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: "'engel''" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 9:08 AM
 Hi Stephen, 
 > Shouldn't all this
 "business" have been "sorted out"
 *before* the Amendment
 > was issued?? 
 Yes, of course it should
 have.  That's why there was a nearly FOUR YEAR period
 of public review.  You had access to the draft amendment
 during this public review period, and given that your
 interpretation of the Code is far superior to anyone
 else's interpretation, you carried a greater
 responsibility than the rest of us to ensure the draft was
 perfect.  As such, all of these problems we are discussing
 now are largely your fault.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list