[Taxacom] ICZN procedure question
Dr Brian Taylor
dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Fri Nov 12 04:12:42 CST 2010
Thank you Lynn,
To exemplify the UK archiving, the "cover" page of my "Ants of sub-Saharan
Africa" website has a link to the archive. See
http://antbase.org/ants/africa/
Incidentally my website (it develops all the time) has been on-line since
1998 and since earlier this year is in the UK archive.
I contributed to last year's ICZN debate - let's have no more
procrastination, please. If the voluntary CODE, remember that voluntary not
mandatory, does not move with the times, perhaps the world will move on and
ignore it. Somewhere in this thread a suggestion I emailed some time back to
Zoobank (no reply) came up. Perhaps an answer is for (e.g.) Zoobank to
register new species notified to them with an accompanying (e.g.) pdf that
can be archived as the original, unalterable, description. Arguably,
peer-review, I hate the anonymous process that allows effective censorship,
is irrelevant to taxonomy as duplicate species can be subjugated by
synonymization, and probably will be. All type specimens ought to be
deposited in a bona fide museum for preservation - warfare not withstanding.
There have been some flippant remarks from the seemingly well-funded, have
you looked at the charges for Zootaxa (colour) and Zookeys. Even in the
"West", we are not all awash with funds.
Brian Taylor
On 12/11/2010 08:30, "Lynn Raw" <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
> You might like to look at this web page:
> http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep/index.html
>
> Other countries have similar systems in place and these collectively probably
> publish most of the taxonomic literature so perhaps the concerns about storage
> are not a problem for the ICZN anyway.
>
> It would be useful to move/copy this discussion to the ICZN list to make sure
> that it reaches the right audience.
>
> Lynn
>
> On 12 Nov 2010, at 01:57, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
>> yes, I think we are starting to understand each other on this issue
>>
>> maybe it is libraries who are driving this? If publishers can continue to
>> make
>> profits by selling hard copies to libraries, then they have little or no
>> reason
>> to stop producing those hard copies. On the other hand, if they can sell
>> e-subscriptions (with lower overheads from not having to print hard copies),
>> then that might be a strong reason for publishers to stop producing hard
>> copies.
>> In that case, taxonomy and nomenclature are threatened by publishers wanting
>> to
>> maximize profits. Sounds like the ICZN (some of whom are also publishers)
>> have
>> accepted this, and plan to change the rules to suit the publisher's thirst
>> for
>> higher profits. Well, that is one way to jump ... but what are the
>> alternatives
>> (if any)? A lot depends on the claimed "inevitability" of hard copy being
>> scrapped anyway by publishers in the future. Suppose that happens. Then we do
>> indeed have a problem. What to do?
>>
>>
>> Suggestion (details need tweaking): it is easy nowadays for anyone to print
>> out
>> text and illustrations, at least of "reasonable" quality. We don't need
>> publishers for that. So why not make it a requirement that for a new name to
>> be
>> valid, a hard copy of the PDF from the publisher must be printed out (by
>> anyone)
>> and deposited in say 6 designated ICZN "libraries" scattered around the
>> globe.
>> Each library could just be a small leased office space or something?
>>
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>> To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
>> Sent: Fri, 12 November, 2010 2:33:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ICZN procedure question
>>
>> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>> this is an advantage of e-pubs over hard copy, but NOT an advantage of
>>> e-ONLY
>>>
>>> take ZooKeys as a good example: they publish hardcopy AND open
>>> access electronic versions of the same articles, so you get the
>>> advantage of worldwide free access, along with the advantage of
>>> solid long-term archiving of the hard copy
>>>
>>> we have both, so why ditch one?
>>
>> Because WE are not the ones publishing these journals, and many of
>> the people who ARE publishing these journals are going to ditch paper
>> copies whether WE like it or not. Refusing to accept the *absolutely
>> inevitable* abandonment of hard copies by major, reputable,
>> peer-reviewed publishers is not going to improve the standing of the
>> ICZN or ICBN. The Codes cannot remain relevant, and expect
>> compliance, if they insist on something which the publishers will not
>> accept, and many authors do not care about enough to fight for. There
>> are now ample examples - many of them discussed here in the past - to
>> demonstrate that there are plenty of authors in the paleontological
>> community, at least, who are perfectly happy to publish new taxon
>> descriptions in e-only journals even if the Codes indicate that their
>> taxa are not validly published. This isn't hypothetical: we have told
>> people "We will ignore what you publish if it isn't Code-compliant"
>> and some people's response has been "Then we will publish anyway, and
>> ignore your silly antiquated Code". I have visions of John Cleese
>> doing a bad French accent and hurling insults at us from atop a
>> castle.
>>
>> Do you honestly expect authors to stop submitting papers to places
>> like Nature or Science or PLoS unless they are given reassurances
>> that hard copies will be printed and archived?
>>
>> To finish the thought, you asked:
>>
>> "who wants e-only and how will they benefit from it?"
>>
>> Who wants it? (A) Publishers, and (B) authors who want minimal page
>> charges. The former get to make more money, the latter get to keep
>> more of what little money they have. I wouldn't be surprised if
>> libraries would also prefer e-only, for similar reasons. If you want
>> to stop this trend in its tracks, you are going to have to come up
>> with a darn good reason that all these people should MAINTAIN the
>> production of hard copy versions - and it has to be a reason that has
>> nothing to do with the Code(s). Jim Croft commented:
>>
>> "but I really worry about entrusting
>> something as important as the establishment of a new taxon name to
>> ONLY something as demonstrably fickle, unreliable and evanescent as
>> the realm on the internet."
>>
>> Lots of taxonomists worry about this, but since taxonomists are not
>> the ones publishing it all, it is out of their hands. "For the good
>> of taxonomy" is not going to convince anyone. I've suggested in the
>> past that we take control and publish it all ourselves, as both
>> digital and hard copy, but the volumes of hate mail that proposal
>> generated make it clear that it isn't an option.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> --
>>
>> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
>> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
>> phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>> http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list