[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
David Campbell
pleuronaia at gmail.com
Fri Jan 22 14:02:22 CST 2016
Just to note, it's not only a problem for trying to establish correct
bibliographic citations and priority. This also affects all of the cases
when the data are in a repository, to be released when the article is
published (e.g., GenBank).
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
Dr. David Campbell
Assistant Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list