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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 28 16:20:51 CST 2016


OK, so you will now presumably also agree that this problem affects all online first papers which don't publish using the same model that Zootaxa does? Ergo, it is a widespread problem affecting lots of journals and publishers, threatening the online first availability of their publications and opening the possibility for unscrupulous people to fix on their own preferred interpretation of the Code and rename taxa that have already been named but with unclear compliance with the Amendment (in the way that Scott Thomson does in relation to Australasian Journal of Herpetology). It also makes very difficult the task of determining dates of availability in the way that Neal and others like to do this.


On Fri, 29/1/16, 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>, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
 Received: Friday, 29 January, 2016, 11:14 AM
 Hi Stephen,
 > Twist the words whichever
 way you like, but the upshot is still that one
 > cannot ever know which version of an
 online work "first fulfills the
 requirements of availability", because this depends (by
 Art. 9.9) on facts in
 > the future, i.e.
 is it a final version or will it undergo a change in content
 > crucially, does a change in
 metadata count as a change in content?)
 Yes, that is exactly the point I made in my
 previous post. No words were harmed (or twisted).  Except
 I'd say it's less an issue about facts in the future
 than it is about definitions of terms; in this case,
 particularly the definition of "preliminary

More information about the Taxacom mailing list