[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 22 16:20:27 CST 2016
"The Executive Secretary may be an employee of an appropriate body, such as the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature"
One might question the appropriateness of an Executive Secretary being the owner of a commercial publishing house whose published output is subject to regulation by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature!
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, 10:49 AM
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
_______________________________________________
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