[Taxacom] Corrigenda and nomenclature

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

David,
this is rather a question for the [iczn-list] mailing list, your 
basic question is how to interprete the Code and which articles 
apply to solve your case. You will find more profound opinions in 
that list.

Typewriting is not a printing method but a method of handwriting. 

Mike wrote:
> However, in the 1999 Code, this was changed (Art. 8.4) to "by a
> printing method then conventional (such as letterpress, offset
> printing) or by hectographing or mimeographing."
> The problem is the phrase "such as."  

Art. 8.4 is not considered to be ambiguous, the term "such as" means 
that before 1900 printing must have been by letterpress (because it 
was the only printing method then conventional), in the 1920s offset 
may also apply, and in modern times they might invent other methods. 
I do not see a basic conflict between the 3rd and the 4th edition.

Some time ago there had been a discussion on the subject of 
circulated slips to be inserted to a work. This was Art. 32.5.1.1 
(Art. 8.4 gives no reference to that article, you have to know it), 
which talks about corrections of inadvertent errors. The result of 
that discussion was that the Code is ambiguous and does not say 
whether or not the slip must have been issued simultaneously with the 
work, or later, but that it would make no sense to issue such a slip 
many years later. It was agreed that simultaneous publication should 
be preferred, that errata published up to 1 year later should be 
recognized for the purpose of Art. 32.5.1.1, and that later 
corrections should not be accepted any more. 
It was nowhere argued that Art. 32.5.1.1 would not constitute a 
conflict with Art. 8.4 and allow typewriting for such a slip.

I would not recognize new names proposed on a circulated slip that 
was not printed by letterpress or offset printing. 

Francisco
University of Goettingen, Germany
www.animalbase.org