[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Thu Jan 21 23:45:53 CST 2016

Well, it's neither new, nor huge*.  But it is a problem, and it was a problem that was recognized prior to the publication of the Amendment, and one which the Commissioners have discussed several times.

The fundamental question that we do not have a definitive answer for yet (even though we have an over-abundance of opinions), is how to establish the date of publication for purposes of priority, when the following dates are non-identical:

1) The date on which the publication was registered in ZooBank.
2) The date of publication as stated in the ZooBank record.
3) The date of publication as stated in the work itself.
4) The date on which the first electronic edition of the work was obtainable.
5) The date on which the ISSN or ISBN was added to the ZooBank record.
6) The date on which the Intended archive was added to the ZooBank record.
7) The date on which a revised version of the electronic edition of the work was obtainable (e.g., containing evidence of registration).
8) The date on which paper copies were obtainable.

There are other dates as well (e.g., the date of publication as stated in the paper edition of the work, etc.), but I hope you get the point that it's not a simple issue, because there are many possible dates associated with a given work.

So... which is the date of publication for purposes of priority?  Certainly, most would agree that it cannot be prior to #4 (assuming the above list is in chronological sequence).  Certainly, not after #8 (provided the paper edition meets all other criteria of the code for paper-based publications).  Most Commissioners I have discussed this with agree that the logical answer is, generally "the earliest date on which all of the requirements have been met".   As #2 has no bearing on any article in the Code, we can probably ignore that one.  But all the others are in potential play.  One could argue (pretty effectively, in fact), that while the Code requires electronic works to include the date of publication to be stated within the work itself, there is no requirement that it be the *correct* date of publication.  Indeed, if such a requirement was, in fact, part of the Code (or how the Code is interpreted), stability would most likely suffer. 

Until there is clarity on this issue, either by Declaration, Amendment, formal statement, or ratified 5th Edition by the Commission, it seems to me (and most others I've discussed it with), that the trusty "the earliest date on which all of the requirements have been met" approach seems the most logical to use as a guideline. 

Aloha,
Rich

*The reason it's not a "huge" issue is that it ultimately affects date of publication for purposes of priority; and while there may be a few cases where potentially competing names both fall within the "grey zone", there certainly aren't many.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:53 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; engel; Doug Yanega
> Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
> 
> Doug (CC Rich),
> 
> I think we may have just stumbled upon a huge problem: "the ZooBank
> registration state both the name of an electronic archive intended to
> preserve the work and ..."
> 
> I have always assumed that the publisher does this, once for each journal?
> Certainly Magnolia Press does it for Zootaxa (not surprisingly, perhaps, since
> the whole electronic amendment is arguably optimised for Zootaxa). How
> many authors think to worry about the archive when registering articles on
> ZooBank? Bugger all! Looking at some random records on ZooBank, I'm now
> worried that a large number of them fail this requirement! I think we need
> some clarification here (Rich?)
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
>  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
>  Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 10:17 AM
> 
>  On 1/21/16 1:03 PM,
>  Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>  > 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!
>  >
>  It is not just this one thing that causes the  name to be unavailable.
>  There are *three*
>  requirements under the present ICZN, and the Engel et  al. online paper
> failed to comply with *two* of  them, not just one. Note  the following
> (from
>  http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-amendment-
> code):
> 
>  " The requirements for
>  electronic publications are that the work be  registered in ZooBank before it
> is published,  that the work itself state  the date of  publication and contain
> evidence that registration has  occurred, and that the ZooBank registration
> state both the name of an  electronic  archive intended to preserve the work
> and the ISSN or ISBN
> 
>  associated with the work."
> 
>  The online version of this
>  work fulfills the first of these criteria,  but neither of the latter two.
> 
>  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
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  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.