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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jan 26 14:57:19 CST 2016


Once again you are mistaken, but that doesn't reflect badly on you, it reflects badly on the the almost bewilderingly confusing way that the Code has been written.

As long as the early view file is considered to be the version of record (with preregistration on ZooBank truly indicated within), all that matters is that the PDF file for it contains something which can be reasonably interpreted as a date of publication. If the subsequent print edition is different in any regard, this is irrelevant.

So, in your example a statement "Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in the online edition contains a date of publication (incompletely specified as 2015), so, all other things being equal, is Code compliant. It is irrelevant what happens after that. What is technically made available is the online first PDF (which probably never gets archived, but actual archiving isn't actually a Code requirement!)

It is all a big mess but a few things are clear enough.



On Wed, 27/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 9:30 AM
 When an early view file issued
 in 2015 gets included in a 2016 volumes, 
 original statement "Systematic Entomology (2015), DOI:
 10.1111/syen.#####" (as in the
 yet-to-be-published file here: 
 ) is 
 *changed* into a statement
 "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, ##-##." 
 (as in this file: 
 , which is 
 registered in ZooBank as
 being published on 12 Aug 2015: 
 The year that appears in
 this statement in the final file (the only one 
 that remains) is *not*, nor is even *intended*
 to be, the year of 
 publication of the pdf
 file that we are trying here to make "published".
 It is the year of publication of the print
 And of nothing
 Cheers, Laurent -
 On 01/26/2016 08:43 PM,
 Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Laurent,
 > You
 are contrasting "in the work itself" with
 "metadata", but this
 > isnot
 necessarily so. Remember that the concept of
 "metadata", as used
 > here,
 didn't exist when the Amendment was drafted. Zhang
 > subsequently pulled it out of a
 hat in order to try to save the
 Amendment from objections relating to "preliminary
 versions". Anyway, if
 > you contrast
 "in the work itself" instead with "just on
 the publisher's
 > web page for the
 article, or elsewhere", then "Systematic
 > (2016), 41, 287–297"
 is "in the work itself". This seems like a
 > reasonable and pragmatic interpretation to
 make, which avoids this
 > particular
 > Stephen
 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 mailing list