Re, Criteria of Publication

[Gomez Luis Diego]

Right on, Blake! At least some people recognize the true intellectual
authority when after a sci. name they write xxx xxx Blake in so&so or
in Botany xxx xxx Blake apud (also in) so&so.

On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, JAMES BLAKE wrote:

> Dear taxonomists,
>
> I would like to interject some reality into the discussion regarding
> dates of a dissertation and whether or not it constitutes a valid
> publication.
>
> Article 9(11) of the current ICZN is quite clear: "....none of the
> following procedures or acts constitutes publication within the meaning
> of the Code: (11) deposit of a document (e.g., a thesis) in a
> collection of documents, a library, or other archive."
>
> Dissertation Abstracts International will provide (at cost) a bound or
> unbound xerox copy of such a dissertation (thesis).  However, this does
> not constitute publication, merely a facsimile of the original sent to
> them for microfilming by the University of origin.  The contents of a
> dissertation do not become "published" in the context of the ICZN,
> until the criteria spelled out in Article 8 are met.
>
> I will cite a specific example of where a new genus and species written
> up in a dissertation have been erroneously cited as valid.
>
> In 1983 my wife, Dr. Nancy Maciolek Blake completed a disseration on
> deep-sea spionid polychaetes.  Included in that work were several new
> taxa.  She immediately worked up and published most of this work in a
> series of papers in international journals.  However, with changing
> careers and other distractions, one paper that would constitute another
> 3-4 of the taxa from the disseration was not completed and although now
> in manuscript form, still has not been submitted.
>
> In 1990 while perusing the latest Zoological Record, I was somewhat
> shocked to find citation to _Aonidella dayi_ Maciolek, 1983 as part of
> a paper published by Lopez-Jamar, E (1989): Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr.
> where he found the species on the Iberian Peninsula and proceeded to
> "redescribe" it.  At the same time, we received a manuscript Dr. Minoru
> Imajima on the spionids of Japan where he had also found the species.
> We informed Dr. Imajima about the Lopez-Jamar record and he
> subsequently published, at our recommendation, the name as: Aonidella
> dayi Maciolek in Lopez-Jamar, 1989.
>
> So, names cited from unpublished sources may lead to confusion and
> required clean-up.  Do not cite names from such unpublished sources
> unless you want to become part of the authorship.
>
> Bye,
>
>
> James A. Blake
> 89 Water Street
> Woods Hole, MA
>