[Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

> The really frustrating thing is that doing it right the first time 
> is actually pretty easy, it is cleaning up afterward that is so much
> work.
Exactly. This is why I tend to be more rigorous in case of 
conflicts. If you don't make your job right and some Turkish author 
goes there and establishes your new name in a Code-compliant way, 
then I would always prefer referring the new name to the Turkish 
author. I am even in favour of a passage in the Code of Ethics (ICZN) 
that would expressedly support such a behaviour, or better said, 
doing such a work.

The Code is voluntary, yes, of course this is right. But not 
following the Code and not following the Code are two different 
things. 
If you submit a paper and cite Clerck's spider names with the year 
1757 (and not with 1758) because you argue that 1757 was the true 
year of publication, then you do not follow the ICZN Code (Art. 3.1), 
but this is not harmful and I would never reject a manuscript for 
that. Here I would say, authors can feel free, either to follow the 
Code or not. Some other rules in the ICZN Code contain similar 
nonsense. 
If you establish a new family name without citing its type genus, or 
if you publish a new name in an e-only journal, this is not harmless 
and something very different, because this really can create 
conflicts, or workload for others. Here I would say, authors should 
not feel free, and following the provided guidelines is important. 

Francisco


University of Goettingen, Germany
www.animalbase.org