[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

[Stephen Thorpe]

It is worth noting that Michael Engel did preregister his article (twice actually!) on ZooBank: 

18 October 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/A6A94078-42E5-48B8-B602-49DA7D0523F6 [Record not publicly viewable]
13 November 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/ADFE8605-38F3-45C6-B686-5094367C9695

It would therefore appear to be the fault of the journal (Cretaceous Research) editorial team that no ZooBank registration was indicated in the publication, and very unfortunate in this case since it the same taxon was apparently validly described as new by Pohl & Beutel shortly after!

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 22/1/16, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
 To: "Hans Henderickx" <cavexplorer at gmail.com>, "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 8:59 AM
 
 The Engel et al. paper is given as
 "Available online 13 November 2015". However, as correctly
 mentioned, it does not fulfil the Code requirements for
 electronic works regarding evidence in the work itself that
 registration in ZooBank has occurred. Therefore, the work is
 not to be considered published in the sense of the Code, and
 the nomenclatural acts in that paper are not validly
 proposed and as such not available. It seems that the print
 version is planned for March, at which time the work will be
 validly published and the nomenclatural acts become
 available.
 
 Pohl & Beutel's paper seems to be fully Code compliant,
 which means that the nomencatural acts are available (given
 that all other requirements are also fulfilled).
 
 So, in short: Pohl & Beutel's names are available and
 valid, and the names in Engel et al. are technically outside
 zoological nomenclature.
 
 /Thomas Pape
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Hans Henderickx
 Sent: 21. januar 2016 20:13
 To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Subject: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new
 species
 
 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-amendment-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.