[Taxacom] How the prokaryote code and our nomenclatural systemworks

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Dear Brian,
Thank you. A few quick comments below

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B.J.Tindall" <bti at dsmz.de>
To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] How the prokaryote code and our nomenclatural
system works

> Dear Paul,
> Some comments below.

> At 16:27 10.11.06 +0100, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>>This makes interesting reading. It is a little disconcerting to see that
>>for prokaryotes the body of rules as published is supplemented (or
>>overruled) by later decisions. I suppose it is not worthwhile to publish a
>>new book after each plenary session.

> Well the problem with publishing a new edition was that one has to find
> funds to do so.

***
Quite
* * *

>The other issue was that the copyright had to be
> transferred to the people who actually write it!

***
Not sure if I understand this. My 1992 copy says:
   Copyright 1992
   International Union of Microbiological Societies
   All rights reserved
* * *

> This was also coupled to
> whether it could be published online. The plans are to publish updated
> versions after each plenary session, as is the case for the Botanical
> Code, as both hard copy and online.

***
Yes, that would be a convenience. Since the 1992 edition is online already,
maybe it would be relatively inexpensive to update the online version only?
* * *

> I did not go into detail about how the body of the Rules are changed, but,
> for example the rules governing the protologue "replaced" an older Rule.
> The older Rule applies to the older literature and the new rule is
> specifically set up to apply FROM a named date. If your concern is that
> new rules disrupt the past, then I can put your mind at rest, I am fully
> aware of that problem. There is, in fact no other way of improving things
> for  the future.

***
That was not my concern, but it certainly is an important point to keep in
mind.
* * *

> One additional concept would be to put older versions of the Code
> online, so that one can track changes over time and see how the older
> names and literature were controlled by the Code.

***
Yes, again, that too would certainly be a convenience. A little easier for
the Code of Bacteria/Prokaryotes as there have been fewer versions (shorter
too!) than of the botanical Code.
* * *

> I hope that the major nomenclatural "clear out" which we had means there
> are no, or at least very few banana skins which will surface when one
> makes a sensible  modification to a Rule.

***
I am pretty sure that is the case
* * *

>>Interesting to see that the etymology of a new name MUST be given. This is
>>a very good idea.

> Saves problems.

***
Indeed.
* * *

>>Also interesting to see a two-stage method of publication in operation:
>>first the full-out scientific publication, and later the inclusion in a
>>validation list published in IJSB/IJSEM (at the same time fulfilling any
>>requirement of valid publication omitted so far).

> It works for us.

>>Thank you for making this available,
>>Best wishes,
>>Paul

> This is simply a service to systematics
> Brian

***
Thanks anyway,
Paul