[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Jan 22 15:38:59 CST 2016
No, Stephen, it is not splitting hairs. The role of secretary general is an administrative role, used to help maintain voting schedules, assist in fund-raising (e.g., long-term viability), etc. It's a role that is part of the ICZN Secretariat (see Art. 9 of the ICZN Constitution). The term "head" unambiguously implies an authoritative and/or decision-making role that is over and above other Commissioners. This would include the President, Vice-President, and Council.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:29 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Michael A. Ivie
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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