[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - onenew species
adamcot at cscoms.com
Wed Jan 27 15:05:08 CST 2016
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Adam Cotton" <adamcot at cscoms.com>
Cc: <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -
>>I would suggest that this paper is actually only available from the
>>printed edition, and any [p]re-publication online versions were not meant
>>to be Code compliant<
> You are unequivocally wrong! I have no idea why the "first published
> online" information is missing from print edition contents page and work
> itself, but that has no bearing on anything! Note that the work itself
> (please confirm this for the print edition) does quote the ZooBank
> registration number (just under the abstract), and the web page for the
> article on the publisher's web site
> (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12158/abstract) does
> state 'Article first published online: 4 JAN 2016'. There is no
> justification whatsoever for ignoring the online first version for the
> reason that it was (supposedly) 'not meant to be Code compliant'!
Yes, you are right, it does give the ZooBank registration code beneath the
abstract in the printed version, and a ZooBank registration for each of the
3 new taxa (family, genus and species names) but nowhere in the paper nor in
the Contents does it state 'Article first published online: 4 JAN 2016'.
That apparently only appears on the website.
I agree that absence of indication in the printed version does not in itself
rule out Code compliant publication for the online version.
More information about the Taxacom