[Taxacom] ICZN position on Darwinius

[Geoff Read]

PS. On reading some of the blogging, some by list members, I see blithe
talk suggesting the publisher start altering the original as a realistic
solution. Wow! Slippery slope! What if it's done in a less high profile
situations? How do we know? How do we prove it? And yet another checking
task for careful taxonomists.

An illustration of a severe problem with electronic pub, IMO.  But maybe
I'm too untrusting.

Geoff


>>> On 22/05/2009 at 2:57 p.m., "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> One major reason there is distrust over electronic publication, and
> traditional paper printing is seen as the best method, is that it is
> thought possible to change the original content of the electronic at any
> time. Some big journal publishers routinely do it with their ad hoc
> custom-built pdfs of journal articles, complete with date, requesting
> institution, etc.  This is not something I know much about, but if there
> was a way of certifying the original text was unaltered (and there
> probably is - along the lines of http://www.adobecds.com/), so that (e.g.)
> cowboy self-publishers couldn't sneakily 'upgrade' their works later, I
> doubt  there would be so much agonizing over going electronic as a medium
> for taxonomy.