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

[Richard Pyle]

Doug wrote:

> So, the name as it appeared on the web on May 19th was unavailable, 
> but not for the reason that people (myself included) initially objected. 
> That doesn't emerge from reading article 8.6 by itself, but only by
linking 
> 8.1 and 8.6 together (i.e., the existence of "durable copies" is a
*prerequisite* 
> for 8.6 to apply to a work). 

Yes, but when you think about it, that's true of *ALL* articles in the Code.
They do not supersede each other -- they all must be satisfied (unless
explicitly stated otherwise, such as the Articles that apply to different
periods of time).  

> The point about PLoS publishing ant names with a clause to satisfy 
> 8.6 was also a red herring. 

Not exactly -- because in that case, my understanding is that they *did*
create an edition of the publication on CD-ROM (Durable media, not on
paper); and so Art. 8.6 may have come into play.  However (again based on my
understanding) in that case they *also* created durable paper copies and
made them obtainable at the same time.  So, essentially, there were three
editions of the publication (actually more, when you consider there were
several online versions): the Online one(s) (excluded by Art. 9.8), the
paper one (complies with Art. 8.1), and the CD-ROM one that was distributed
to at least 5 major libraries, as stated in the work itself (complies with
Art. 8.1 and 8.6).  I suppose one could, then argue that the CD-ROM and
paper versions each represent separate Code-compliant publications, and that
we have a case of objective synonymy (and homonymy) on our hands.  But I see
this as a very weakly-supported perspective (for several reasons), and one
that certainly does not tend to support the stability of nomenclature.

> Article 9.8 is what folks should have been pointing to all along. 

Yes -- exactly.

> Why, exactly, does Article 9.7 *NOT* now apply to the copies that 
> PLoS printed today and is making available?

That's a good question; and one I've been struggling a bit with myself.

Here is Art. 9.7 in full:
=============================
Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work
within the meaning of the Code:
[...]
9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if
previously deposited in a library or other archive;
=============================

We could probably spend days dissecting the meaning of "Notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 8", but I'm not going to go there.  I do tend to see a
bit of a paradox here, but my best interpretation is that it's meant for
works that fail to meet the criteria of "simultaneously obtainable" (Art.
8.1.3).  In other words, if a publication exists only in non-durable form,
or only as a single copy on durable media (although, to be literal about it,
even a single electronic copy exists on durable media -- they don't call it
a "Hard" drive for nothing...so I can't even imagine any document that
doesn't exist as at least one copy on "durable" media -- except, perhaps,
for the spoken voice -- which isn't really a document.....but I digress).
Starting again: if a publication only exists as a single copy, then "print
on demand" seems to imply a failure to comply with 8.1.3.  But....one
wonders, then, why we need Art. 9.7, if this situation is already dealt with
via Art. 8.1.3?

Perhaps Commissioners who were involved with the drafting of the 4th Edition
could comment on why Art. 9.7 was inserted, and if there was a specific
scenario they had in mind that either was not covered by Art. 8.1, or needed
further amplification and/or clarification.

> Copies of the document in question were not printed until PLoS 
> was advised by the ICZN that they needed to print copies to make 
> the names available. Apparently these could be considered "copies 
> obtained on demand" (it would not appear relevant that the number 
> of copies produced was greater than one; nothing in any definition 
> I could see for "print on demand" implied that it *only* applies 
> if copies are produced singly). I don't think we can make the 
> convoluted implication that 9.7 refers *only* to "unpublished 
> works" that already exist on durable media, and are considered 
> unpublished for some *other* reason.

I guess "convoluted" is in the eye of the beholder.  By your argument, every
print journal could be treated as "on demand", because if there was no
"demand" from subscribers, there wouldn't be a printing.  Moreover, the ICZN
did not, in any way "Demand" anything from PLoS.  Only the Executive
Secretary and (at least) one Commissioner merely "advised" PLoS that, in
order to be available under the code, a published work must be produced in
an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that
assures numerous identical and durable copies, and that such copies must be
obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase for the purpose
of providing a public and permanent scientific record.

> About the only thing I can figure is that if PLoS says no more copies 
> will *ever* be produced, then they can claim they are *not* printing 
> on demand - but if playing around with how one defines "on demand" 
> is the only way to exclude these copies from falling under 9.7, 
> isn't that really, really tenuous?

I don't see it that way.  Again, we could extend your logic to any
print-publication that has subscribers. I don't think that would serve the
interests of nomenclatural stability.  But I do agree that Art 9.7 needs
elaboration, so perhaps it should also be addressed via the existing pending
amendment to the Code.

Aloha,
Rich