Publication date

[Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.]

Unfortunately some of the newest "printing" processes incorporate various
techniques taken from "xeroxing" or photocopying.  Indeed some things
"published" today are reproduced by photocopying.  Thirty years ago or
even a few years ago, photocopying was not considered part of the
publication process.  So many things are now "published" via photocopying
or photocopying techniques that it is now a valid form of publication,
and so therefore are things "published" using that procvess in the past.

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
Room 304, Building 011A, BARC-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350 USA
Voice telephone: 301-504-9447
FAX: 301-504-5810
Internet: jkirkbri at asrr.arsusda.gov

On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Gomez Luis Diego wrote:

> Conrad Vernon Morton, some years ago Curator of Ferns at USNH Smithsonian
> wrote a very sound piece on publication by xerox. I believe it appeared
> in Taxon but my files burned justly a year ago. Maybe someone could find the
> actual reference but if my memory is to be trusted, publication by
> photocopying does not constitute formal and valid publication. Mr. Mortons
> argument was not contended by any of those who new the spirit of the articles
> of the Code ( e.g.. Stafleu and crowd).
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 1995 jkirkbri at asrr.arsusda.gov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Gomez Luis Diego wrote:
> >
> > > In my view, a name appearing in a dissertation be it a Master-s or PhD
> > > does not constitute a sanctioned and validly published description in the
> > > sense of the Code. By validly published the ICBN means a book, serial or
> > > any other type of written and available to the general public (public means
> > > the botanical constituency). A dissertation is not generally available in
> > > that sense, new names in them fall within the category of nom. prov.
> > > (provisional names) until formal publication in accordance with ICBN.
> > > Yes, it is expected that the exam is somehow a peer review so the candidate
> > > has even better reasons to get his/her new taxa into circulation.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Richard Jensen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know how the publication date for a dissertation is
> > > > determined?  The case in question involves a dissertation approved in
> > > > 1989, but bearing on the cover 1990, the year the degree was awarded.  I
> > > > have encountered both dates in the literature and wonder if there is a
> > > > "rule" covering this.  I assumed that the date it was approved (i.e.,
> > > > accepted by the graduate committee) was the date of publication.
> > > >
> > > > Richard J. Jensen      |   E-MAIL: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
> > > > Dept. of Biology       |   TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674
> > > > Saint Mary's College   |   FAX: 219-284-4716
> > > > Notre Dame, IN  46556  |
> > > >
> > >
> > There is a very interesting and poorly known case in the systematics of
> > plants from the western United States.  Almost thirty years ago (when
> > xerox machines had just become available) a large dissertation
> > treating more than 300 taxa with many "new" things was prepared.  The
> > student distributed copies of his dissertation to all the principal botanical
> > libraries in the United States, far in excess of the manditory copies for
> > his university, and very little from it was published.  Does this constitute
> > valid publication?  Fifty years from now there will be a major contraversy
> > over whether the student's "new" names are vaild or not.
> >
> > Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.
> > USDA, Agricultural Research Service
> > Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
> > Room 304, Building 011A, BARC-West
> > Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350 USA
> > Voice telephone: 301-504-9447
> > FAX: 301-504-5810
> > Internet: jkirkbri at asrr.arsusda.gov
> >
> >
>