Revisions in theses?

[christian thompson]

Denis points to the right Articles, but is completely wrong in his
conclusion.

>From the beginning, many theses have been regarded as fulfilling the
requirements of Article 8 and are considered valid publication under the
ICZN.

As some of us have regarded the theses that Linnaeus presided over as being
for the permanent and public scientific record, it is difficult to declare
that "these per se are not regarded as valid publications."

[Denis: Is Fallen's work on the Diptera fauna of Sweden not a valid
publication because it was issued as a series of theses?]

So, the critical point is that all theses like all publications must be
examined and independently evaluated against the requirments of Article 8.
Universal assertions should not be make unless they related to those things
EXCLUDED by Article 9.

Cheers

F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov [NB: no terminal "n"]
visit our Diptera site at www.diptera.org


>>> Denis Brothers <Brothers at NU.AC.ZA> 11/08 7:23 AM >>>
An essential point so far missed is that theses per se are not regarded as
valid publications. They do not fulfil all the requirements of Article 8 of
the ICZN.
Denis

Professor Denis J. Brothers
School of Botany and Zoology
(and Centre for Environment & Development)
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Private Bag X01              Telephone: (+27) (0)33-260 5106
Scottsville                        Fax: (+27) (0)33-260 5105
3209 SOUTH AFRICA     e-mail: brothers at nu.ac.za