[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 15:47:31 CST 2016
Well, as usual, we seem to have a conflicting mishmash of information from various sources. At least I did cite a source. If that source in misleading and/or incorrect, then that doesn't reflect on me. It does however seem odd that [quote]One of his top priorities in his new job would be to ensure the commission’s long term viability[unquote] if there is actually no such thing and/or there he has no power for decision making in order to achieve this "top priority"!
OK, so I retract my use of the term "head of" and congratulate him instead for being appointed to a tedious fund-raising administrative role with no decision making power!
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: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:32 AM
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