[Taxacom] Thesis and new species

[Richard Pyle]

The ICodeZN errs on the side of inclusion of works as being "published" --
in part to preserve stability of early names that were established through
works that were published in a manner not too dissimilar from you
hypothetical example.

The truth is that both the Zoological and "afp" Codes (and probably the
Bacteriological Code as well, though I am not as familiar with it) are rich
in examples of how phrases can be interpreted in different (and sometimes
extreme) ways.  

What we REALLY need is to abandon this silly notion that animals, algae,
fungi, and plants somehow require different rules of nomenclature based on
some aspect of their biology, rather than as an artifact of a long legacy of
tradition (again, I can't speak for bacteria here, because a case can be
made that their biology is significantly different).  A lot of effort was
put into the notion of a unified "BioCode", but this seems to have been
deemed politically unpalatable to too many individual end-users.

The answer is obvious, and essentially inevitable: a unified online
nomenclatural registry, that is structurally separated from (but tightly
cross-linked to) the traditional publication process.  The new ICEN
(International Code of Eukaryotic Nomenclature) need only have two Articles:

Article 1: To be available, a new scientific name must be registered.
Article 2: See Article 1.

Obviously, the community has not yet achieved critical mass yet to move in
this direction; but the passage of time favors it.  It's not a question of
*if* this is where we end up; it's only a question of when we get there.

Enough ranting....  too much else to do today.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:50 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Thesis and new species
> 
> From: "Thomas Pape" <TPape at snm.ku.dk>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:58 AM
> > The word "obtain" needs not imply formal ownership. Note also that
> > your "if" may not be provable. Given evidence that somebody somehow
> > "obtained" a copy when the work was issued, the conclusion in
> > ICodeZN-context will be that the work was obtainable.
> 
> ***
> By that standard anybody who produces a print run of ten copies and then
> donates a copy to his mother has produced an available work.
> 
> I know the zoological Code is filled with words that don't mean what they
> appear to mean, but this is just weird. This does not sound like
"obtainable"
> to me, let alone like numerous "simultaneously obtainable copies"  ...
High
> time for some rephrasing?
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.