[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Fri Jan 22 15:49:25 CST 2016
Oops, looked at the wrong constitution, ITZN, not ICZN. There is a
Secretary-General possible, but the position has no duties specified,
and certainly is not head of anything.
"Article 9. Secretariat. The Council may appoint an Executive Secretary
for such a term and with such duties as may be fixed in the Bylaws; a
member of the Commission may be appointed similarly as
Secretary-General. The Executive Secretary may be an employee of an
appropriate body, such as the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature."
Mike
On 1/22/2016 2:32 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
> 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