[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.
> 
> ***
> Which is why the ICNafp has different requirements for effective
publication,
> depending on the time something was / is published.
> * * *

As does he ICZN Code.... but there is a delicate balance for time-relevant
rules and intelligibility of the Code as a whole.  There is no right answer.

> > Article 1: To be available, a new scientific name must be registered.
> > Article 2: See Article 1.
> 
> ***
> That is an oversimplification. If there was such a registry lots of rules
would
> still be involved, which might have the form of a Code or of a manual for
> registration.

Yes, of course!  But those rules would be embedded in the registration
process.  It wouldn't be something people would read per-se, it would be
enforced through a series of business-rule logic built into the user
interface for registration.

> It seems rather uncertain to me if we will really have registration for
> everything. We seem to be somewhat moving in that direction, but only
> somewhat. A few years ago the zoological Code was set to introduce
> registration across the board soon, but nothing came of it? Except for
e-only
> publication, of course.

We certainly do not have registration for everything now.  As I said, that's
where we are ultimately going.  The big question is how best to get there.

Aloha,
Rich