[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jan 26 13:56:58 CST 2016
Rich, I hope you can now appreciate why it would have been better to carefully consider a selection of different publishing models BEFORE issuing the Amendment, and not one (and we all know which one!)
Anyway, I think that the following Article is problematic in the context of the present debate regarding "time window for publication":
18.104.22.168. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published.
The key words are BEFORE PUBLICATION. One possible interpretation is:
temporally prior to 'publication' in the sense that publishers use the term;
This would imply that if an electronic work is published without preregistration, then it can never comply with 22.214.171.124, unless you have a Tardis or other means of travelling back in time!
Now certain revisionist Commissioners are trying to reinterpret 126.96.36.199 as really meaning that "before a work can be considered to be published according to the Code (i.e. validly published), it must be registered on ZooBank.
Is this right or wrong? There is no answer to that until the ICZN issues a formal clarification.
On Wed, 27/1/16, 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: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 7:56 AM
> I don't follow
> 1) You start off by referring to
Article 21.4, which deals with the date of
> publication, in the sense of the Code.
> And then you deny that the date of
publication in Article 8.5.2 is intended as
> the date of publication, in the sense of
the Code. If it is something different,
> then it is pointless to refer to Article
21.4, as it cannot apply.
No, I did not "deny that the date of
publication in Article 8.5.2 is intended as the date of
publication". Of course it is the intended date of
publication! But the key word here is
"intended". If I understood your position
correctly, you seemed to suggest that inclusion of a date
within the work somehow establishes a "window" of
time within which all requirements for publication must be
fulfilled, and if all requirements are not fulfilled within
that stated window, the work cannot (ever) be regarded as
being published. If this were true, then there would be no
need for articles that address dates incorrectly stated
within the work. If I misunderstood your position, then I
> 2) If the
Editorial Committee intended something different why
> put in something
I'm not sure
I understand your question. If you are asking whether the
Editorial Committee intended Art. 8.5.2 to apply to the
intended date of publication, then we are in agreement.
Where we disagree is in my (incorrect?) interpretation of
your position as being that the date included in the work
must be treated as an exclusive time window, within which
all criteria must be met. The Code does not say that
explicitly, and implicitly (e.g., Art. 21.2, 21.4) indicates
that dates stated within the work may be treated as
> 3) The
Preamble states "The meanings given to terms used in
this Code are
> those shown in the
the glossary defines the date of publication as: "the
date on which copies of the work become available by
purchase or free distribution. If the actual date is not
known, the date to be adopted is regulated by the provisions
of Article 21.2-7" It does not invoke the date as
stated within the work of established a defined window
within which the work must meet all criteria for
publication. It does refer to Art. 21.2-7, and Art. 21.4
addresses dates incorrectly stated within the work
The problem, of
course, is that the glossary was not amended to accommodate
the (novel) situation we have now where all criteria
necessary for publication are no longer included within the
work itself. In 20/20 hindsight, we should have revised
this definition along with the amendment to make it clear
that the work becomes available when all requirements are
So we now have a
situation where there is some ambiguity in determining the
date of publication. As I tried to explain in my first
post to this thread, the Commissioners have recognized this
problem, and most of the Commissioners I've spoken with
agree that, in the context of this ambiguity, the interests
of nomenclatural stability are best served through
interpreting the date of publication as being the date on
which all requirements are fulfilled.
If you disagree that this is the best approach
to addressing the ambiguity, then we should certainly
discuss other approaches. However, if you are trying to
maintain that the existing wording of the Code unambiguously
establishes (via Art. 8.5.2) that the date stated in the
work itself defines a window within which all criteria must
be met, and that there are no situations in which the date
that fulfills the requirement of Art. 8.5.2 can be
interpreted as "incorrect" in the sense of Art.
21.4, then I completely disagree.
> 4) Anyway, Article 8.5
states three requirements for an electronically
> distributed work, and you now postulate
that the second of these
does not apply?
When did I
postulate any such thing? What I am refuting is your
apparent assertion that the stated date within the work
itself cannot be regarded as incorrect (i.e., the defined
window within which all criteria be met). Art. 21 clearly
accommodates cases where the stated date of publication
within the work are incorrect.
> As the Code is written, it is very
explicit: the publication must state the date
> of publication.
And the Preamble makes it clear that, by definition, there
> just the one "date of
publication", that of the Glossary.
> If it appeared on
some other date, then the date of publication was not stated
in the work
> (but some other date), and
thus the work does not meet the requirements of
> Article 8.5.
Agreed, except I would qualify it slightly to
say "... then the CORRECT date of publication was not
stated in the work..."
> It is not published in the sense of the
Then why do we have
Art. 21.4? What circumstances would Art 21.4 apply to?
Are you suggesting that it applies only to works produced on
paper? If so, on what basis would you make such a claim?
If not, then what, exactly, are we arguing about?
> As to Article 21, it is
not so much that it does not apply, but it does not bear
> on the matter. Article 8.5.2 states a
simple, direct requirement, without
room for any qualification.
And here, I think, is where we fundamentally
> Article 21
might be thought to bear on the issue of establishing if
> did indeed appear on the date
stated, but there is a logic trap. Namely, if it
> appeared on another date, it was not
published in the sense of the Code, and
the whole Code does not apply (just as the Code does not
apply to the latest
> pop song).
It seems you are putting a lot
of words into the Code that are not there.
> Anyway, that is what the
Code says, leaving out any unwritten parts.
At least we can agree on
following what is in the Code, and not relying on any
sorry, Paul - but I simply do not follow your logic. I may
well be misunderstanding your point, but it sounds like you
interpret the wording of Art. 8.5.2 as somehow locking some
sort of window of time, and not allowing for an incorrect
date to be stated within the work itself. I would almost
agree that one could legitimately interpret it this way
(among other legitimate interpretations). However, because
the wording in Art. 8.5.2 mirrors that of 21.2 (both refer
to a stated or specified "date of publication"
within the work itself), and 21.2 clearly accommodates
situations where evidence is contrary to such a stated
"date of publication", I cannot see your position
(at least as I understand it) to be legitimate.
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