[Taxacom] [iczn-list] ICZN position on Darwinius

[Richard Pyle]

As a follow-up to Ellinor's post (by the way, she is the Executive
Secretary, not the President), I also posted two comments to the same blog
(#54 & #56) -- which I will not repeat here; except to summarize that Art.
8.6 is not relevant in this case (see my comment #54 on the blog).
 
Also, moments ago there was a post from Peter Binfield (Managing Editor,
PLoS ONE), asserting that paper copies have been generated.  I have
requested that I obtain one of these copies, thereby confirming (if and when
it arrives in the mail) that they are, in fact, "obtainable" as of today.
 
People: let me make an appeal for calm and rational thinking.  And let's be
careful not to let the tail wag the dog on this.
 
I think Neal Evenhuis got it right in his posts to this thread (and not just
'cause he's my boss!).  From the perspective of the Code, the electronic
versions SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST!  Obviously, they do exist from the perspective
of practicing taxonomists who download and read them -- and this is why I
recommended that the paper-printed copies of the PLoS ONE article
establishing Darwinius and D. masillae as available under the Code be
IDENTICAL in information content to the online PDF version, EXCEPT for a
note on the date of "obtainability" of the paper copy (for purposes of
establishing priority under the Code).  That way, people who download and
read the PDF will know, with acceptable levels of confidence and accuracy,
that the taxonomic and nomenclatural information contained within that PDF
is a reliable facsimile of this information as it appears in the
Code-relevant edition of the publication. That is, the numerous paper copies
that now exist in Peter Binfield's office, which are intended for the
purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record, and are
simultaneously obtainable (in this case by purchase).  

Very much like the fact that the digital scans of Linnaeus (1758) available
in various online locations can be treated as reasonable facsimiles of the
originals.  

And just like the electronic "pre-publications" of some of the high-profile
journals can be treated as reasonable facsimiles of the paper-printed
editions that follow.  

And just as my photocopies of rare original descriptions can be treated as
reasonable facsimiles.

And so on.

As for the tail wagging the dog, I don't think it does anyone any good to
admonish PLoS ONE as irresponsible or deliberately flaunting the Code. All
evidence (some of which I have collected personally) points to the exact
opposite -- that the editors are sincere in their desires to comply with the
Code.

Taking off my ICZN Commissioner's hat and putting on my practicing
taxonomist's hat (which I hope to continue wearing for several more decades
yet), I APPLAUD PLoS ONE for what they are doing.  They're taking a lot of
heat for doing what I think is ultimately a very valuable service to both
taxonomy and nomenclature.  Because of their actions, we are having robust
conversations that are long overdue (in my opinion).

The points raised earlier by Francisco are legitimate and important, and
worthy of considered discussion and debate.  We should be spending our time
and energy focused on fine-tuning the proposed amendment to the Code to
allow electronic forms of publication (or not), rather than making a big
fuss over one (admittedly high-profile) new genus and species publication.

There are some seriously weighty issues we need to consider:  like the
balance between the need for permanence and information continuity on the
scale of centuries, vs. the undeniable advantages (and undeniable *reality*)
of a future that relies very heavily on electronically-encoded information
exchange among intellectuals (which may actually include a few taxonomists!)
I have my own ideas about this (which I will share later, on the appropriate
discussion thread).  But the point is that those of us who are concerned
(dare I say "passionate"?) about taxonomy and nomenclature should confront
these weighty issues head on, and come to some sort of general (if not
universal) consensus about the path forward.  This includes issues related
to electronic publication, ZooBank, and, indeed, the very future of ICZN.

Damn...five other emails demanding my attention have come in whilst writing
this, so....that's all for now.

Aloha,
Rich


________________________________

	From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org
[mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega
	Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:41 AM
	To: iczn-list at afriherp.org
	Cc: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
	Subject: [iczn-list] ICZN position on Darwinius
	
	
	The president of the ICZN has just (within the last hour) made a
public statement worth sharing here regarding Darwinius
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/20/does-darwinius-exist/):
	
	
	45.   Ellinor Michel Says:
	May 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
	Thanks for this useful exchange. I thought I'd post the reply we
have provided the authors and the press.
	1. The names are not nomenclaturally available from the electronic
version of the publication.
	2. The journal has contacted us for advice on how to ensure these
names are nomenclaturally available, which we provided, saying that a
separate print edition must be produced by a method that assures numerous
identical and durable copies, and that those copies must be obtainable free
of charge or for purchase.
	3. If the publisher does what we recommended, then the names will be
nomenclaturally available from the date of the paper publication.
	4. This is a provisional arrangement as the ICZN is working on a
proposed amendment to the Code allowing nomenclatural availability of names
published in electronic-only journals. The proposed amendment is available
here: http://www.iczn.org/electronic_publication.html and we encourage
public input in this important discussion.
	5. There are >1.8 million named species in the world, with
approximately 16,000-25,000 new nomenclatural acts each year in zoology
alone. Managing the scientific names indexing of this biodiversity requires
rules promoting stability. The International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, representing the taxonomic community and users of zoological
names, works to uphold stability but also to develop the rules to
accommodate technological development.
	-- 
	
	Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research
Museum
	Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
	phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
UCR's)
	             http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
	  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
	        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82