[Taxacom] Corrigenda and nomenclature

[mivie at montana.edu]

Dear Francisco,

I am thrilled at your statement that typewriting is a form of handwriting.
 This would of course invalidate all other concerns.  I knew of the
32.5.1.1 citation, but thought that the case still hinged on the issue of
whether or not the circulated slip correction was validly published, which
goes back to Art. 8.

Is there a place where typewriting is defined as a form of handwriting
anywhere in the Code?  I can't seem to find it.  Since Case Law is
excluded from Code issues, how do we cite such a conclusion? I am
particularly interested because I have been having this argument with a
colleague about a typewritten, carbon-paper-duplicated (what I call a)
manuscript distributed in the 1950s, and he thinks it is published, I say
no.  A citation for your assertion would nail this very nicely.

The changed phrasing of 8.4 would give a good lawyer an opening that did
not exist in the previous Code.  It is the one being used against me in
the above mentioned case.  I do not buy it, but others might.

Mike

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>