[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species - PS

[Stephen Thorpe]

PS: That may not be quite true? The January 2016 print edition of Sytematic Entomology is published at least online (but is it really published yet as hard copy?) So, Pohl & Beutel's article may be validly published at present, if the print edition really is published already in hard copy. However what I said still holds, i.e. oh dear, it is quite possible that nothing in Systematic Entomology has ever been validly published e-first! All those Zoobank preregistrations meant nothing, in the absence of archiving info. So to determine publication dates and priority, each article must be checked on ZooBank for archiving data, and if there is none, then any new names date from the publication date of the print edition (which could be tricky to determine). All that effort wasted on preregistrations, with the risk of someone else publishing new names for the same taxa while waiting for the print edition! Messy ...

Stephen



--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 22/1/16, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species - IMPORTANT BAD NEWS!
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, msengel at ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com, Frank.Krell at dmns.org
 Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 4:47 PM
 
 Hold on a minute, Doug! We now have a
 much bigger problem! Pohl & Beutel's name isn't
 available either!! Look at the ZooBank records for article
 and journal: 
 
 http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
 http://zoobank.org/References/94AA9CFD-6807-409B-BCC0-863D0AACA0CC
 
 Nothing for archiving!
 
 Oh dear, it is quite possible that nothing in Systematic
 Entomology has ever been validly published e-first!
 
 Stephen
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new
 species
  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 4:37 PM
  
  
      On 1/21/16
  5:41 PM, Stephen Thorpe
        wrote:
  
      
      
        Yes, but the question is whether (4) could ever
  be expected to be the responsibility of an author?
  
  
      
      I shouldn't have to remind you, but...
  
      
  
      For the better part of a decade, during the
 struggle to
  get a
      provision into the Code to allow for e-only
 publication
  of
      nomenclatural acts, one of the BIGGEST concerns
 that
  taxonomists
      expressed - one of the major points of resistance
 to
  change - was
      the fear that it was impossible to ensure the
 longevity
  of
      electronic documents. I have an archive containing
 piles
  of such
      comments, posted right here in Taxacom, to
 demonstrate
  this.
  
      
  
      It was considered by the taxonomic community
 ABSOLUTELY
  IMPERATIVE
      that the Code amendment make it mandatory that
  any author
      who wanted to make an e-only work that was also
  Code-compliant be
      required to tell readers where that work was going
 to be
  archived,
      so in 50 or 100 years, people could still find and
 link
  to online
      copies - i.e., ensuring that no
 nomenclaturally-relevant
  works could
      ever vanish into the ether. This is what you
 wanted, and
  we gave you
      what you insisted upon - the best possible
 mechanism to
  ensure
      archival longevity and accessibility of e-only
 works.
  
      
  
      It is entirely up to the author whether or not to
  publish in an
      e-only journal; they are making that choice
 themselves,
  and thereby
      knowingly choosing to subject their work to
 additional
  criteria for
      availability, and ALSO thereby making themselves
  responsible for
      knowing whether the publication venue itself
 fulfills
  these
      additional criteria. When an author chooses a
 particular
  e-only
      journal, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that
 they
  know
      something about the journal they are submitting to
 - in
  particular,
      knowing whether the archiving practices of the
 journal
  that's chosen
      are Code-compliant, and then making sure that
 readers
  know where the
      work is archived - is ALSO quite clearly an
 author's
  responsibility.
      It all goes along with the choice to publish
 digitally
  in the first
      place. 
  
      
  
      Of course, if a journal can't or won't assure
  you, as an author,
      that their archival protocol for digital works is
  Code-compliant,
      then you shouldn't publish in that journal!
  
      
  
      Sincerely,
  
      -- 
  Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology   
    Entomology
  Research Museum
  Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 
    skype:
  dyanega
  phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
  UCR's)
               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
    "There are some enterprises in which a careful
  disorderliness
          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby
  Dick, Chap. 82