[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Jan 22 15:59:33 CST 2016
When did I say that the role is of "no real consequence"? Are you suggesting that any role that is not regarded as a "head" of something has no real consequence? What are you the head of? Can I assume that everything you do that is not done in your capacity as the "head" of something is of no real consequence?
In fact, the Secretary-General role is potentially critical in the items I already mentioned, and I am personally grateful that someone as organized and capable as Zhi-Qiang has agreed to serve in that capcity. It's just not something anyone would describe as the "head" of the ICZN.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:53 AM
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Michael A. Ivie';
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
>
> 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