[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jan 26 17:39:44 CST 2016
>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)<
I thought I had already covered this (several times actually)? But I see you are trying a slightly different angle this time, so, OK, I will answer:
For now, Zootaxa (as far as anyone can really tell) chooses not to publish e-only or even e-first. However, Zhang is a player of the long game, and could at any time decide to change that (for a long time he resisted doi, but eventually changed his mind). The Amendment as ratified will make seamless any transition of Zootaxa to e-first or e-only. They don't need to worry about anything. There are no gray areas, no i's left undotted or t's left uncrossed. The (online) reader might not even notice the transition at all. And it is also like this for any other publisher who uses the same model as Zootaxa. That is not the point. It doesn't matter who else uses the Zootaxa model. It just matters that Zootaxa uses that model. The Amendment fails other models (models that publish e-first or e-only, models that publish preliminary versions, etc.) by simply not addressing crucial issues which determine the availability of new names published using these alternative models. Crucial issues like what exactly is a preliminary version? It speaks volumes that only Frank thought to raise that one, and nobody else was interested because it was too late in THE DAY! Wow, you set aside a whole day to sort out matters crucial to the Amendment and that matter didn't make it!
The Amendment set up Zootaxa for a seamless transition to electronic publishing, but left crucial matters relating to alternative publishing models in a prrorly thought through and messy state. The owner of Zootaxa was one of the main architects of the Amendment. 1 + 1 =2! I'm not suggesting that he deliberately tried to kneecap the competition in an act of industrial espionage! I have no idea. I'm just suggesting that the Commission thought through the Zootaxa situation very carefully, but made less effort to consider other models sufficiently. It is the simple consequence of a fairly obvious COI, which should have been avoided.
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: "'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: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 11:23 AM
> 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!)
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
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).
> 220.127.116.11. An error in
stating the evidence of registration does not make a work
> unavailable, provided that the work can be
unambiguously associated with a
created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature
> 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
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 18.104.22.168,
unless you have a
> Tardis or other means
of travelling back in time!
> Now certain revisionist Commissioners are
trying to reinterpret 22.214.171.124 as
meaning that "before a work can be considered to be
> according to the Code (i.e.
validly published), it must be registered on
Which Commissioners are you referring to? I
haven't seen any Commissioner "trying" to
interpret 126.96.36.199 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:
published work. (2) The issuing of a work conforming to
Articles 8 and 9.
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