[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Thu Jan 21 14:50:38 CST 2016

There will always be a need to 'fine-tune' the zoological Code to contemporary changes in the way we publish scientific information. 
However, any nomenclatural issue must be assessed on the actual (and relevant) Code. In this case there is no doubt that an electronic work MUST contain evidence in the work itself that registration in ZooBank has occurred in order to be considered as published in terms of the zoo-Code.
Note also that the electronic publications under consideration both have volume and page numbers.

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Reuscher
Sent: 21. januar 2016 21:38
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

The issue of the nomenclatural availability of "online first" versions of taxonomic papers has recently been discussed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by Krell (2015) and Dubois et al. (2015). In essences, Krell suggests that the date of the online publication should be considered the publication date, as long as the content in the final version remains exactly the same (except for issue and page number of course, which Krell calls bibliographical metadata). Dubois et al., on the other hand, suggest that the online first version should be ignored and only the final publication should be considered a publication. They argue that issue and page number are part of the publication, because they are often often used to refer to species descriptions or other important data. Note that Krell and Dubois are both commissioners of the ICZN. Therefore, I think that this issue has not been resolved by the commission and is still up for debate.

best,
Michael

*Michael Reuscher, **Ph.D.*

*Postdoctoral Research Associate*

*Ecosystem Studies & Modeling *

*Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies*

*Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi*

*6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869*

*Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5869*

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
wrote:

> This is a zoonomenclaturally relevant issue, with precedence in 
> relation to electronic publication and zoobank issues as main topics.
> For this kind of questions I would recommend to post this case also on 
> the [iczn-list] mailing list, for there may be list members with 
> nomenclatural skills who are not on the [Taxacom] list.
>
> (I have nothing to add to the explanations by Doug and Thomas.)
>
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 21.01.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Hans Henderickx:
>
>> The following two publications were almost simultanously published in 
>> January 2016 concerning the same fossil species but based on two 
>> different specimens from Burmese amber (Strepsiptera).
>>   The publication of Engel was already available online 13 November 
>> 2015 (noted in the publicaton: www.elsevier.com/locate/CretRes), but 
>> it's reference in the publication (for the printed version I suppose) says 2016.
>>   The Pohl publication was also registered in ZOOBANK
>>   *  Engel, M. et al. (2016) A new twisted-wing parasitoid from 
>> mid-Cretaceous
>>   amber of Myanmar (Strepsiptera). Cretaceous Research
>>   ((http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008)
>>     -and-
>>   *  Pohl, H. (2016) Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri - a new ancestral
>>   species, genus and family of Strepsiptera (Insecta)(DOI:
>> 10.1111/syen.12158)
>>   http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:
>>   zoobank.org:pub:07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
>>     Wich publication has priority here, and wich name is valid? 
>> Engel's publication was online published and registered by Elsevier 
>> two months earlyer (2015), so the name proposed in this publication 
>> Phthanoxenos nervosus looks to have priority rights.
>>
>> However, according the ICZN about online publishing the names in an 
>> online publication are only 'legally' registered after registration 
>> in ZooBank.
>> See http://iczn.org/node/40562 . Until than the publication should be 
>> considered as 'non valid' and the names as 'unavailable'
>> see:
>>
>> http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-amendme
>> nt-code
>>
>> http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3096
>>
>> In that case, taken in consideration the ZooBank instruction, only 
>> Pohl's publication is legally valid, with another species name in this case:
>> Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri. However, Elsevier has registered Engel's 
>> publication  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.008. before
>> (2015) and ZooBanks' profile as 'monopoly concerning registrations' 
>> could be considered as illegal concurrence. Space for discussion here 
>> it looks to me, I am interested in the opinion of the list members.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Hans Henderickx
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.