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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Jan 26 16:23:55 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!)


I hope you can appreciate that we did very carefully consider a selection of different publishing models BEFORE issuing the Amendment, and additionally considered them during the review process.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Amendment as ratified favors the Zootaxa model more than any other model, and fails other models, when most of the "evidence" presented so far suggests that they benefit much less so than other publishing models. (e.g., they continue to publish on paper anyway, so the Amendment technically doesn't benefit them at all).

> 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 is the intended meaning of "before" (i.e., temporally) the work is published in the sense of the Code. 

> This would imply that if an electronic work is published without
> preregistration, then it can never comply with, unless you have a
> Tardis or other means of travelling back in time!

> Now certain revisionist Commissioners are trying to reinterpret 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.

Which Commissioners are you referring to?  I haven't seen any Commissioner "trying" to interpret at all.  Perhaps I missed something?  Can you refer me to an example?

It's pretty clear that the Code consistently refers to "published" as meaning published in the sense of the Code.  The Glossary defines "publication" as follows:
publication, n.
(1) Any published work. (2) The issuing of a work conforming to Articles 8 and 9.

Art. 8 defines what a "published work" is. (i.e., "What constitutes published work").  Art. 9 defines what is not a published work (i.e., "What does not constitute published work").

I don't know how it could be any more clear that whenever the Code uses the word "publication" or "published", it means so as "published work", which is a work that is published in the sense of the Code.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list