[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 15:03:29 CST 2016
Rich,
I'm going to have to reply to some of your comments individually. Firstly:
>Finally, can you elaborate on what you mean by this statement:
>"BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his recent appointment as head of the ICZN"
>?
This is what I mean: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about/news/snippets/researcher-in-nz-first
Looks like I do know something that you don't! :)
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 23/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> 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, "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 9:55 AM
Hi Stephen,
Let me clarify... I scale the
magnitude of the issue using a baseline of paper-based
publications and/or the situation as it existed prior to the
amendment for electronic publication. I often see lots of
frantic arm-waving and other forms of virtual panic about
one crisis or another related to electronic publication.
To be sure, there are some new problems that have been
introduced with the Amendment, and CERTAINLY the Amendment
did not solve all of the problems that existed before it
(nor could it have). As Doug has already alluded to, the
Amendment represents a compromise between many different
possible approaches, and ultimately reflects the best
consensus of the community at the time.
One thing the Amendment has done is shine a
spotlight on problems that have existed for a long time, but
which people scarcely noticed before. That they went
unnoticed before doesn't mean that they were any less
serious before; only that many of us were blissfully
ignorant. One might argue that an "ignorance is
bliss" approach is warranted, but it seems incompatible
to basic scientific principles that we taxonomists would
generally like to adhere to.
So, here are some examples of things that are
helpful:
- Specific observations about how
the existing rules fail in particular circumstances
- Constructive suggestions on how the next
edition of the Code can be improved to minimize such
failures
And here are some
examples of things that are not helpful:
-
Frantic arm-waving and hyperbolic exclamations about how the
nomenclatural sky is falling.
-
Misrepresentation of problems with the Code that have been
illuminated by the Amendment for electronic publication as
though they were *caused* by the Amendment (when in most
cases they were, in fact, extant prior to the Amendment, and
in many cases at least mitigated to some extent by the
Amendment).
- Representing personal
interpretations about how the Code "should" be,
with what is actually written in the Code.
-
Utterly bogus (and, frankly, childish) accusations that
the Amendment was somehow nefariously influenced by the
needs/demands of the for-profit publishing community.
Note: Stephen, I am not
necessarily accusing you of all these things; but I've
seen examples of them fly through Taxacom and other venues
on a regular basis.
In
answer to some of your specific questions: every edit to
every record in ZooBank is logged with information on what
field was changed, what the previous and new values are, who
changed them, and exactly (to the nearest millisecond, UTC
time) when the change was made. So, for example, if you
edited archive info into the Zoobank record for Systematic
Entomology, there would be a record of the fact that you
edited it, and exactly when you edited it. Not all of this
information is visible on the ZooBank website, but as soon
as we receive the next round of ZooBank development funding,
much of it will be added. In the meantime, I am happy to
retrieve and provide this information for any field of any
record.
Finally, can you
elaborate on what you mean by this statement:
"BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his
recent appointment as head of the ICZN"
?
Either you
know something that I don't, or this serves as one more
example reflecting the reliability of your insights on the
ICZN and its functions.
Thanks, and Aloha,
Rich
Richard L.
Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural
Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety
Officer
Department of Natural Sciences,
Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe
[mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:29 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'engel'; 'Doug Yanega';
>
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online
published - one new species
>
> The issue may not be "huge", but
I think it is probably bigger than you
>
indicate. There can be problems in determining "the
earliest date on which all
> of the
requirements have been met". Adding to this problem is
the fact that
> many publishers are
publishing print editions online ahead of actual print
> (sometimes by months). We have already
seen Frank Krell suggest, quite
>
erroneously in my view, that "March 2016" must be
a mistake on the
> Cretaceous Research
website. In fact, it is no mistake! They have published
> their March 2016 print edition online
already, but it presumably won't be
>
actually printed until March! One, I suppose only fairly
minor problem,
> concerns the nominal
year of publication for taxon names, which is
> frequently widely appended to the names
(i.e., Aus bus Author, YEAR). It is
> now
very hard to choose between one year and the next (if online
versions
> are published in one year, but
the print version isn't actually printed until the
> following year). Another problem is that
many people have wasted a
> significant
amount of time doing preregistrations on ZooBank that were
in
> fact pointless. They thought that
they were validly publishing online first!
> There are also issues relating to how easy
it might be to make apparently
>
retroactive edits on ZooBank, which cannot be (at least not
publicly)
> datestamped (for example,
what would happen if I now edited archive info
> into the Zoobank record for Systematic
Entomology?) Regrettably, I think
> that
in the rush to push through a Zootaxa optimised electronic
amendment,
> the ICZN has created rather
a confusing mess for many authors and
>
publishers to try to deal with. BTW, congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang
on his recent
> appointment as head of
the ICZN (I would have thought that there was
> rather a big COI involved there, but
apparently not...)
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 22/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
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,
"'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>,
"'Doug
> Yanega'"
<dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 6:45
PM
>
> 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list