Publication date

[Gomez Luis Diego]

That is an entirely different story. Your initial query was is xeroxing a
means of valid publication. My answer was no, xeroxing is not and I mentioned
Morton's analysis. Camera ready, lithographic, off-set, which may be
considered in the new era of printing as variations of photocopying are not
part of the issue discussed as the end product of such processes is a printed
book, serial, monograph, you name it that goes to the market and thus
fulfills the requirements stipulated by ICBN.

On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr. wrote:

> 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 mean
> s
> > > > 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 candidat
> e
> > > > 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 botanica
> l
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>