[Taxacom] electronic publication in zoology: who are the biggest idiots?

[Stephen Thorpe]

Are the biggest idiots authors/publishers who misinterpret the Code? Or the writers of the Code, for making it so difficult to interpret??
 
Here is a recent example: 
 
Tan, J. et al. 2012: New fossil species of ommatids (Coleoptera: Archostemata) from the Middle Mesozoic of China illuminating the phylogeny of Ommatidae. BMC evolutionary biology, 12: 113. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-12-113
 
The journal is e-only, but in the methods section the authors state: [quote] To comply with regulations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), we have deposited paper copies of the above article at the Natural History Museum, London; the American Museum of Natural History, New York; the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; and the Academia Sinica, Taipei.[unquote]
 
the relevant articles of the Code are: 
 
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase
 
8.6. 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, 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
 
Clearly, although they don't specify, the authors think that they have complied with Art. 8.6, but they have not, because because paper copies are not the form in which the article was published, it was published electronically (in the form of PDFs). It is hard to know how one can deposit PDFs into libraries, and, as we all should know by now, Art. 8.6 was written in the CD ROM era, before PDFs on the web became the preferred form of electronic publication...
 
So, can we "shoehorn" this case into compliance with Art. 8.1.2? Probably not! The PDFs satisfy 8.1.2 (but fail 8.6), but the printed copies do not satisfy 8.1.2. Giving them to five libraries is surely like giving them to five friends. It does not make them "obtainable" by general public. GP can perhaps read the copies in the libraries, but I don't think that makes the copies "obtainable"?
 
All the authors/publishers had to do was to state that some number (not necessarily 5) of printed copies had been made on the date that the article was electronically published, and these copies can be purchased, or are freely available, by writing to the authors/publishers until stocks run out ...
 
There is an urgent need to clarify these matters relating to electronic publication ...
 
Stephen