[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
l.raty at skynet.be
Tue Jan 26 05:05:54 CST 2016
"Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, 287–297" is not "in the work itself".
Go to this year's first issue of the journal:
...and check any of the papers that was published online in 2015, you'll
find out that they all now say "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41,
Thus this "2016" is not fixed content, it is modified when the paper is
inserted in an issue, and it must be interpreted as "metadata" if the
early view file is to be published.
The only "date" that seems to go unmodified from the early view to the
final pdf is in the "©2015 The Royal Entomological Society" statement in
Cheers, Laurent -
On 01/26/2016 10:31 AM, John Noyes wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Yes, I am not worried about the particular order, but how much
> constitutes a date as far as publication goes. In the publication in
> question (Pohl, 2016) the only reference to the date in the article
> itself is
> "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, 287–297"
> Is the "2016" unequivocally the date of publication? Instinctively I
> would say it is not. Therefore the article is not available until the
> printed version is issued. Perhaps the date of publication is hidden
> within the publication itself but I cannot find it. This is why I
> would like the date of publication to be prefixed "Date of
> publication:" so that there is no doubt.
> John Noyes Scientific Associate Department of Life Sciences Natural
> History Museum Cromwell Road South Kensington London SW7 5BD UK
> 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): www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
> -----Original Message----- From: Taxacom
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van
> Rijckevorsel Sent: 25 January 2016 18:18 To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu Cc: 'engel'"' Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
> A date consists of day, month and year (though not necessarily in
> that order). I see no requirement to use the exact wording "Date of
> publication", any format that gets across that it concerns the date
> of publication should do.
> However, if you want to nitpick, there is the question of the
> publication that indicates it is going to be published on 4, 5, 6, 7
> Jan. and is indeed published on one of these days. Arguably, this
> provides the date of publication plus three other dates.
> It looks terribly untraditional and wrong but I see no immediate
> argument as to why this should not be Code-compliant?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Noyes" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
> 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 4:19 PM Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important
> note Re: two names online published - onenew species
>> 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!!
>> John Noyes Scientific Associate Department of Life Sciences Natural
>> History Museum Cromwell Road South Kensington London SW7 5BD UK
>> jsn at nhm.ac.uk Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594 Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942
>> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know
>> about chalcidoids and more): www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
More information about the Taxacom