[Taxacom] Availability of Nephilingis Kuntner, 2013

Vladimir Blagoderov vblago at gmail.com
Thu Aug 22 14:19:07 CDT 2019


I do not know why this topic even came up eight years after electronic
publication amendment. One would have thought this was enough time to read
and understand a few clearlly formulated sentences.

We should not even read beyond article 8.1.3.2. A Word document (as I
understand the case is here) does not have fix content and layout. Just
this is enough, never mind requirements of registration and evidence of
such registration in the work itself.

There is a simple remedy - just publish these names properly, and stop
looking for excuses not to read the Code

Cheers,

Vlad

--
Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS, FRMS
Principal curator – Invertebrates

National Museums Scotland

Chambers Street

Edinburgh

EH1 1JF

National Museums Collection Centre

242 West Granton Road

Edinburgh

EH5 1JA



tel. +44(0)131 247 4261


e-mail:

*v.blagoderov at nms.ac.uk <vblagoderov at nms.ac.uk>*
vblago at gmail.com

Fungus Gnats Online:
www.sciaroidea.info


On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Pyle via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> I have not followed this discussion in detail either, but I did want to
> point out one particular peculiarity with the Code, concerning this point
> raised by Evan:
>
> > 3) Along the same line of thought, it needs to be clarified if the
> description or
> > definition of the taxon that appears in the Appendix (but not in the
> paper)
> > could be considered as "accompanying" the name sensu Art.
> > 13.1.1, or the citation of the appendix in the original publication
> could be
> > considered IMO "a bibliographic reference to such a published statement"
> > sensu 13.1.2.
>
> The full text of Art. 13.1.2 is:
> "13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published
> statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before
> 1758, or in one that is not consistently binominal, or in one that has been
> suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work
> is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7])"
>
> The key relevant point here is that the published statement to which a
> bibliographic reference points does not itself need to be published in the
> sense of the Code.  The wording here is incongruent because in most cases
> when the Code uses the word "published", it means "published in the sense
> of the code".  But in this case, it refers to a "published statement" that,
> for various reasons may not be published in the sense of the Code.  This is
> a technical issue that needs to be addressed in the 5th Edition of the Code.
>
> *HOWEVER*, and more to the point....
>
> This Article lists specific types of works not published in the sense of
> the Code (i.e., pre-1758, non-binominal, suppressed) that can be referenced
> bibliographically to fulfill this requirement, and also indicates one type
> (ruled by Commission as not published) where it cannot fulfill this
> requirement. There are many other reasons why a work is not considered
> published that are not explicitly mentioned here (including electronic
> works that fail to fulfill Art. 8.5, as well as exclusions listed in Art.
> 9).
>
> To me, it is unclear whether works falling into such categories of
> otherwise non-published works, and not explicitly mentioned do, or do not,
> fulfill the requirements of Art. 13.1.2, when cited bibliographically.
>
> I think the example of this thread is an excellent case upon which this
> question ought to be discussed.  Speaking as someone who was involved
> rather intimately with the process of drafting the Amendment for electronic
> publication, I'm fairly certain that this question was never raised during
> that time (though perhaps someone can correct me on this point).  My gut
> feeling is that if it had, I would have interpreted failure to meet
> criteria for electronic publication as among the "exceptions" through which
> a "published" statement could be bibliographically referenced (in
> fulfillment of Art. 13.1.2), in the same league as pre-1758, non-binominal,
> and suppressed).  On the other hand, I can also see a rational argument for
> why non-compliant electronic works (like an electronic Appendix) should
> *not* be among the exceptions (i.e., in which case Art. 13.1.2 would not be
> fulfilled in this situation).
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist | Dive Safety Officer
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
>
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the
> exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list