[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

[Richard Pyle]

> OK, here is one: Lack of archiving specification in ZooBank records can easily
> result in failure of online first availability of new taxon names. The lack of
> electronic archiving is really not a problem if the journal has a print edition.
> Therefore, I suggest that the next issue of the Code (or, better, a Declaration
> before then) retroactively validates such failures, and makes electronic
> archiving a requirement only if there is no print edition.

Excellent!  Thank you!  But can you be a bit more specific in describing both the problem and the proposed solution?  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a missing archive in the ZooBank record renders a work unavailable from its electronic edition -- at least until the archive is eventually indicated in the ZooBank record.  We already know this from the Amended Code itself.  Are you suggesting there should be greater visibility of this on the ZooBank site?  Already, anytime someone prospectively registers a work without indicating an intended Archive or an ISSN, there is a warning message sent to the user that without these items, the work will not be available from an electronic edition.  The user needs to acknowledge this message before the registration completes. What else should we do to prevent accidental registration of works intended to be published electronically that are missing the ISSN or intended archive?

As for your proposed solution, certainly I think there will need to be some action that addresses works published electronically that lack the required ZooBank components (ISSN/ISBN and intended Archive).  But before we get there, we should probably solidify the general logical suggestion that the work becomes available when all requirements have been completed.  I have some ideas on how we might improve the ZooBank website to include additional information along these lines, and as soon as I get some free time to implement them, I will. But, like everyone else, my free time is precious, and I'd rather not develop solutions before there is a formal decision on how those solutions should be defined.

So... do you agree that we should interpret the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority of works published electronically to be the date on which all requirements of the Code were fulfilled?

Aloha,
Rich