[Taxacom] ICZN procedure question

[Richard Pyle]

> So there is no "8.6 ...  it must contain a statement that copies
> (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at 
> least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified 
> by name in the work itself." ?
> * * *

I said:

"Well, the Codes do not currently make such stipulations for paper-based
copies"

My inclusion of the qualifier "paper-based" was not accidental.

For the benefit of others not as familiar with Art. 8.6 as Paul and I are,
the part Paul excluded via "..." reads as follows:

"Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on
paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on
paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code,"

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=8&nfv=
#6

> I am not saying that is not an option, but it would be a much 
> bigger step than the one I suggested. It may well be that 
> the world is not ready for such a big step.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  But it's not the "world" -- it's a
subset of the world, who represent the consituents served by the Codes.  I
doubt we'd find unanimous agreement on what the scope of that subset is.
Taxonomists, to be sure.  But taxonomists are not the only consumers of
scientific names.  Depending on how much the decisions are biased to serve
one constituency over another, the "best" answer may vary.  Even if we
limited t to just practicing taxonomists, we have a great diversity of
viewpoints (as is evident from these ongoing discussions).  

But I will say this:  having observed and particupated in this conversation
for many years, the trend is clearly shifting over time towards
pro-electronic.  I have some (mostly obvious) ideas about why this is.  I
think the point made by Doug and Lyubo and others is correct: the transition
from paper-based to electronic forms of communication *and* information
archiving is inevitable.  What we're really arguing about now is: "Are we
there yet?"; and, if not, then what's the best compromise approach when
starting the transition?

Aloha,
Rich