[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Stephen!  This is starting to feel a bit more useful.

> 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. 

OK, understood. But if the Journal published a print edition, then presumably the work is already available from the print edition. Or, are you saying that the ICZN Commission should retrospectively change the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority to a date earlier than when the print edition was obtainable?  If so, which date should be taken as the earlier date?

For reference, a sample of dates is presented below:

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.

> 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). 

OK, that corresponds to #4 in the above list in cases where the electronic edition contained all the other requirements (e.g., evidence of registration within the work itself), or #7 in cases where a revised electronic edition included all the requirements.  This, of course, presumes that such dates precede the date on which the work might be considered available from the print edition.

So, following your example, suppose you updated the ZooBank record to include an Archive on 1 Dec 2014.  Assuming all other requirements are met, then the general approach of "when all requirements are met" logic would suggest a date of availability as 1 Dec 2014 (again, assuming that was the last requirement to be fulfilled).  Under your suggestion of ICZN correction, the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority would be pushed back to 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.

Note that archiving is not a requirement of the Code.  The only requirement is an indication of the intended archive in the ZooBank record for the work.

> No, my mind is still open on this issue. It can be very difficult to determine if
> and when each requirement is fulfilled. 

Indeed!  This has always been the case.  At least with ZooBank and the Amended Code, we have some reasonably precise and reliable dates to work with.  The ambiguity has always been the date of actual obtainability.  This was (and still is) MUCH more problematic for paper works than for electronic works, but still can be problematic for electronic works as well.

> 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.

Indeed! And that's why many of us support the "Registered=Available" (or "Registered=Published=Available") model, which would almost completely eliminate all ambiguity about the date of availability once and for all.

Aloha,
Rich