[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 15:29:13 CST 2016
Well, the article I linked to states [quote]One of his top priorities in his new job would be to ensure the commission’s long term viability[unquote]
So, what does the president do, then?
It is really splitting hairs to criticize my use of the vague term "head of"! It is near enough to make my point.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 23/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:10 AM
Isn't the head of the ICZN a
President? Did someone change the By-Laws?
On 1/22/2016 2:03 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
_______________________________________________
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