[Taxacom] EJT, European journal for taxonomy

Thu Jun 30 05:37:43 CDT 2011

A little while ago, I picked up a set of _Pilot Register of Zoology_ cards
that was being disposed of by the library of the WA Museum (due to them
having duplicate copies, I presume). They were in a pack and still had the
introductory notice that was sent out with them, in which it states "The
_Register_ is distributed to over 1000 institutions and individuals in all
parts of the earth", as well as giving instructions for obtaining extra
sets. Unless the distribution was underestimated, that sounds like enough to
be effectively valid.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dr Brian Taylor
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:15 PM
To: Doug Yanega; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] EJT, European journal for taxonomy

Thank you for your response Doug.

Well, as my grandmother might have said - "the proof of the pudding is in
the eating".  I can criticize you because there are no visible facts, i.e.
"No evidence, M'Lud".

I wrote some time back re deposition of, say, a pdf with Zoobank to
determine publication date. I got no reply. Your comments on the Code and
"publication" seem to suggest only "publishers" (self-appointed) can issue
acceptable new descriptions. In the ant literature there are examples of new
descriptions by W L Brown in "Pilot Register of Zoology (Cornell
University), cards nos. 29 and 30. 1974". Those seem to breach the Code
provision but I have never found any suggestion of their being invalid. I
doubt if there were "numerous" copies and, in any case, how many small
journals distribute numerous copies?

Brian Taylor

http://antbase.org/ants/africa/

On 29/06/2011 18:50, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

>> Quoting from the website (third paragraph):
>> 
>>   "Printed versions of EJT papers will be distributed to some major
>>    natural history museums and institutions to comply with the rules
>>    of the different nomenclatural codes."
> 
> It is remarkable how many people seem to think that the Zoological
> Code contains a requirement that paper copies be deposited in a
> library.
> 
> The actual quote of the relevant part of the ICZN is Art. 8.1.3, which
says:
> 
> "it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously
> obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and
> durable copies."
> 
> The provisions regarding dissemination and deposition, etc., are all
> listed as Recommendations (Recs. 8A-8E, in particular).
> Recommendations are simply instructions for good practice, and are
> not *required* for a work to be Code-compliant.
> 
> If the printed versions of the EJT papers do not fit the explicit
> criteria above ("simultaneously obtainable" and "method that assures
> identical and durable copies"), then they are not published, and if
> they do fit the criteria, then they ARE published - regardless of how
> many libraries have received copies.
> 
> The Code explicitly prohibits print-on-demand, and the boundary
> between (into which the EJT may fall) is a gray area. The relevant
> Article is 9.7, which prohibits "copies obtained on demand of an
> unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a library
> or other archive"
> 
> You will note from the wording of this Article that just because
> something is printed, and in a library, does NOT mean it is published
> as far as the Code is concerned; it MUST satisfy Article 8, which
> makes requirements regarding *HOW* it was printed. The reason this is
> a gray area should be obvious: a person printing out a dozen copies
> on their home laser printer can argue that, technically, all 12
> copies were printed from the same computer file, and therefore
> identical, and that they were all simultaneously obtainable. If this
> was literally how the copies were produced, it probably would be
> Code-compliant, but the problem is that there is no objective method
> of determining whether this is in fact how it *was* done. That person
> COULD have printed one copy one day, two copies the next day, another
> copy three days later (with a typo fixed), two more copies the
> following day, and so forth, and thus NOT been Code-compliant. We
> would have only their personal word that they were all printed at one
> time, and all identical. I would accordingly argue that the use of a
> computer printer is accordingly not a method that *assures* anything
> (as opposed to, say, a printing press). If such a case were ever put
> forth to the Commission, it could possibly be contentious.
> 
> Certainly, at the time these Articles were first incorporated into
> the Code, private individuals did not have much, if any, capacity to
> self-publish Code-compliant works, but now they do (and conversely,
> genuine publishers have been migrating away from the printing press).
> Much of the debate and argument (both historically and today) centers
> around the archival nature of a given method of production - and that
> leaves lots of room for argument, as you can imagine.
> 
> Brian Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Yep!  And how long have we been waiting for the "voluntary" ICZN - who
>> appointed/elected the Commissioners - to fall off the fence?
> 
> Speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, we fell off the fence years ago,
> and have been working for quite some time now on drafting a policy to
> incorporate electronic publication into the Code. As with all such
> matters of red tape, drafting new policies takes time (especially
> when dealing with arguments such as the one above) - so please don't
> think that just because we have not *yet* issued a revision to the
> Code, that we have no intention of *ever* doing so. If you're going
> to criticize us, please be certain of the facts first.
> 
> Sincerely,

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3733 - Release Date: 06/29/11