[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Fri Jan 22 15:32:42 CST 2016
Well, actually, if you consult the Constitution and By-Laws of the ICZN
there is no such thing as a Secretary-General, so a person with that
title cannot actually be head of anything. Stephen, don't believe
everything you read on the internet!.
Mike
On 1/22/2016 2:29 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list