[Taxacom] ICZN position on Darwinius

[Richard Pyle]

I've probably typed more keystrokes concerning this issue during the past 24
hours than I did for all of my PhD Dissertation....

Some of those keystrokes are posted on Carl Zimmer's blog:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/20/does-darwinius-exist/

Note also on this blog comment #61 from Peter Binfield of PLoS ONE.

And here are a few more keystrokes:

As I wrote in my first comment to the blog (#54): the issue is not about
Art. 86., but rather Art. 8.1 (specifically 8.1.3, and to a lesser extent,
8.1.2).

Personally (not wearing my ICZN Commissioner hat -- although I retain the
same opinion when I do wear that hat), and with the clarity of hind-sight, I
think Art 8.6 was a mistake.  To me, the notion of publishing nomenclatural
acts for the purpose of contributing to the permanent scientific record on
CD-ROMs (which is pretty-much the only non-paper durable medium people have
used for this purpose) gives me the willies (MUCH more so than the Darwinius
case, notwithstanding all of the firey rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding
it).  It's analgous to a provision allowing original descriptions to be
published in the form of punch cards, provided that the cards conformed to
some standard format (e.g., IBM 5081), and sets were distributed to at least
5 major libraries (etc., etc.).  Such a notion would seem silly to us now,
but there was a time when it might have been perfectly reasonable.

Now...in defense of the authors of the Code who crafted Art 8.6, they wisely
did NOT specify a medium for information storage (everyone assumes it means
CD-ROMs, but it could also mean memory sticks, SIM cards, or any other
"durable" medium other than paper that might constitute a "publication").
So my analogy of the punch cards is a bit of a straw-man (Or is it a Red
Herring? Or did I Jump the Shark? I can never keep these expressions
straight...).

In any case, I'm personally very pleased to see all of this discussion
(fiery and hyperbolic though some of it may be).  It's a conversation that I
think is long overdue.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:59 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] ICZN position on Darwinius
> 
> Dear All,      
>       I'm not positive exactly what the ICZN Secretary means 
> by a "separate print edition" must be produced.  Sounds like 
> they are requiring an edition printed on paper.
>       This sounds like a rather expensive fix to the problem. 
>  Why couldn't they do what Palaeontologica Electronica does, 
> namely depositing CD-ROM copies of the publication in at 
> least 5 major libraries (which is apparently in accordance 
> with the requirements of Article 8.6 of ICZN).  Of course, 
> Article 8.6 also requires that those 5 major libraries be 
> explicitly named in the publication.  Couldn't the online 
> publication then simply be modified to list those 5 libraries?
> Or does the ICZN believe it is too late to fix the problem 
> with CD-ROMs and printing on paper is the only solution they 
> will now accept?  I guess it depends exactly how one defines 
> "separate print edition" (do
> identical CD-ROMs count?).     
>  
>         --------Ken Kinman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with 
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here