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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jan 28 16:00:42 CST 2016

> >I do recall a conversation that effectively concluded that, per Art.
> >21.9, whichever version first fulfilled the requirements of
> >availability would establish the date of publication<
> This is an important point. It explicitly contradicts:
> 9.9. preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of
> publication

Not really, because if a work is excluded because of 9.9, then it can't be the one that first fulfills the requirements of availability. No contradiction -- you had it right the first time (i.e., no good definition for "preliminary versions ").  

> Art. 9.9 means that any subsequent change in content of a work invalidates
> it. 

Really?  Where do you see that in the Code?  Did I miss the place where "preliminary version" is defined in this way?

> So, a work which seems to fulfill all requirements of availability at one
> time may lose that availabililty if the content subsequently changes! 

Says you, but not says the Code.

> There is
> debate over whether or not addition of metadata counts as a change in
> content? John Noyes says yes, it does. Others say no, it doesn't. Is there a
> right or wrong answer?

Nope. Hence the ambiguity.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list