[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 15:53:10 CST 2016
Well then perhaps we have a good example of how Landcare talks up something of no real consequence into a big victory for itself and our small country! Frustratingly, the Landcare board is probably going to interpret that news article exactly how I interpreted it and this will no doubt add to their general level of smugness!
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, "'Michael A. Ivie'" <mivie at montana.edu>
Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:38 AM
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