[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

[Stephen Thorpe]

No, I am saying that failures of availability due only to the lack of specification of an electronic archive on a ZooBank record should be retrospectively quashed if the journal published a print edition, and the requirement should be dropped for such cases. So, if I registered a new name, but forgot about (or ignored) the archiving requirement, and the paper was published on 1 Nov 2014, online first, in otherwise fully Code compliant fashion, but the print edition wasn't published (as a real hard copy) until some difficult to determine time after 1 Jan 2015, then my new name would be Aus bus Thorpe, 2014 (Date of valid publication: 1 Nov 2014). If someone publishes a new name for the same taxon (let's say in a print journal) on 2 Nov 2014, then their new name is a junior synonym of mine. The hard copy serves as an archive. We only need electronic archiving for e-only journals.

>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?

No, my mind is still open on this issue. It can be very difficult to determine if and when each requirement is fulfilled. I think that there is a bigger case to opt for a scenario along the lines of "if it looks like it should be available now, then it is available now". Publication dates should be made as easy as possible to determine.

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, 11:09 AM
 
 > 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