[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Fri Jan 22 18:45:17 CST 2016

Thanks, Scott.  Just to be clear, the idea behind both the “Registered=Available” and the “Registered=Published=Available” models is that EVERYTHING relevant to nomenclatural availability onder the ICZN Code would occur within the Official Registry of Zoological Nomenclature (i.e., ZooBank).  Obviously, the existing incarnation of ZooBank falls FAR short of fulfilling this requirement, but if pending grant proposals are funded, it’s entirely conceivable that ZooBank could be enriched to the point where it can fulfill such a requirement, and on a timeline much sooner than all plausible timelines for the ratification of the 5th Edition of the Code (or for another Amendement, for that matter).

Under such a model, there would no longer need to be a determination of dates for #2, 3, 4, 7 or 8.  There would, though likely be a number of other dates included, all of which would be automatically time-stamped within the ZooBank record in a way that is (as much as practical) unalterable and/or verifiable.  The key thing to note, however, is that under these models, the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority would be knowable essentially instantaneously, and would be essentially 100% objective, from a single source.

This is not to say that publication of taxonomy would cease.  Indeed, taxonomic publications would continue to proceed as they always have.  It’s just that the miniscule portion of the vast majority of taxonomic works that have some bearing on nomenclatural availability would be consolidated within the registration process, and completely independent of traditional “publication”.

One more point of clarification: the only real difference between the “Registered=Available” model and the “Registered=Published=Available” model is the degree to which the registration process resembles the modern publication process (e.g., review & quality control processes).  Perhaps a less confusing way to brand the models of which I speak would be as “Verified Registered=Available”, wherein the “Verified” qualifier of “Registere” would need to be very carefully defined – either in the next edition of the Code, or through formal ZooBank Policies.

Aloha,

Rich

From: Scott Thomson [mailto:scott.thomson321 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:49 PM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; engel; Doug Yanega
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

If I may make a comment here. I think a part of the problem is that while trying to develop a means of dealing with electronic publication we have also tried to maintain the status quo for the more traditional approaches that existed prior to electronic publication. Which sad to say were not perfect anyway; This is creating a duality in method and honestly more confusion.

Maybe its timely to just accept that things have changed, alot, and work out a method that works for all names, no matter how they are published. Your registered = published = available model could work for print or electronic publications, where published is the version that shows the zoobank registration, other constraints could be added as needed but this could be the basic model. Your point 7, would be the date of availability.

Cheers, Scott

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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.

-- 

Scott Thomson

Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo

Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)

Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga

04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

http://www.carettochelys.com

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722

Lattes:  <https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD> http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728

Skype: Faendalimas

Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095