Undescribed species and the Internet

[Fabio Moretzsohn]

Dear Taxacomers

Once again we stumble upon the issue of describing new taxa on the internet
and media other than paper. So the ICxN codes do not (yet) recognize new
taxa described on the internet only, but if the author simply prints a few
(how many?) hardcopies and distributes them to libraries, museums are
herbaria, then the taxa could be considered *effectively* published. Is my
assumption correct?

My question is: who checks if the minimum number of copies was properly
distributed? Does the author have to tell other people (e.g. through Taxacom
or a website) that so many *exact copies* were made publicly available, when
and where? What then constitutes the publication date - the day when the
hardcopies were mailed, the day the first one arrived to its destination, or
the day the last of the minimum number of copies arrived?

Probably most people are thinking that if someone publishes the description
of a new taxon on the internet, then it will be at least several days before
the hardcopies reach the libraries. BUT it is already possible to make the
delivery available on the same day, for instance by using one of the several
online services such as NowDocs.com, that can print documents to their local
stores and deliver a hardcopy to many metropolitan areas in as little as a
few hours. Of course the fast delivery would cost money, but this way it
would be possible to have the internet and the hardcopy version effectively
published on the same day. I am not advocating doing this, but just saying
it is possible, and that it probably would suffice the requirements for
publication according to ICxN. Correct?

Chuck Parker wrote:
>... images of undescribed species available on the Internet (or other
>public outlets) prior to publication?  [snip] ...it would help keep certain
>funding lines lubricated, help generate excitement among the public,
>promote interest among students, etc.

I think Chuck meant to make images of undescribed species available
*without* giving it a name before publication, as "A new (or undescribed)
species of x was found at y". It would be advisable not to give too much
details about the location (e.g. GIS coordinates) if the location is rather
accessible to others, but it would be OK if the access is restricted, e.g. a
photo of an undescribed giant squid at 3000m depth. I agree that it would
generate excitement among the public and be a good PR, and increase chances
for more funding.

And:
Rich Pyle wrote:
>...In fact, I would dare say that such real-time information availability
>will be downright necessary if we have any hope of completing a
>comprehensive survey of global biodiversity.

I think Rich is right, and that it should become more common in future
expeditions, if not a requirement by some granting agencies. However, in a
few popular groups such as butterflies and some shells, making this type of
raw data available in real-time could actually generate more unnecessary
nomenclature (by a few "describe-anything-as-new.com" types). BTW, Rich's
expedition to Palau was pretty cool, I remember following part of the daily
logs and the many discoveries. He was looking for fishes in deep water
(hence his email address "deepreef"), and he (and John Earle) found a rare
cowrie which they donated to me for study. Mahalo!

Aloha,  Fabio


----------------------------------------
Fabio Moretzsohn
PhD candidate in Zoology
Department of Zoology
University of Hawaii
2538 The Mall
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
fmoretzsohn at hotmail.com (preferred)
fmoretz at hawaii.edu


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com