[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Jan 22 15:15:55 CST 2016
Hi Stephen,
You seem to be confused about the role of "Secretary General".
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:03 AM
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'engel'; 'Doug
> Yanega'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
>
> 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