[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 15:11:02 CST 2016
Frank,
Zootaxa is very relevant to this whole thread and wider discussion.
Fact (1): there are significant problems with the electronic amendment (no, the sky isn't falling down, people aren't running for the hills in droves, etc., but in the context of zoological nomenclature there are significant problems), none of which affect the Zootaxa publishing model.
Fact (2): the owner of Zootaxa is a prominent member of the ICZN who had a significant part to play in the development of the electronic amendment.
Now, you can claim, if you really want to, that facts (1) and (2) are independent, coincidence, or whatever, but to me it looks like a classic case of a COI. The best interests of zoological nomenclature as a whole are not necessarily the best interests of Zootaxa in particular. You make yourself look foolish if you refuse to acknowledge the problem here. You might claim that the COI is outweighed by other more important factors (like, maybe, keeping the ICZN viable and running), but it is really self-evident that the electronic amendment was optimised for the Zootaxa publishing model and to hell with any other alternative. There is no room for doubt regarding the Code compliance of Zootaxa articles, but articles from many other publishers are very much in the "how liberal do you feel" bucket, and it isn't going to be long before taxonomists start renaming taxa already named by others in these dubiously valid publications (just like Scott Thomson renames taxa from Australasian Journal of Herpetology). All this is not good! It isn't a corrupt conspiracy, or anything of the sort. It is just not good for zoological nomenclature, not good for taxonomy, and not good for science.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 9:40 AM
As expected.
Still being pragmatic.
And
Zootaxa again, out of context, but in your mind all the
time.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 1:37 PM
To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>;
Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
names online published - one new species
Frank,
That is
a pretty darn liberal reinterpretation of:
8.5.3.1. The entry in the
Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature must give the
name and Internet address of an organization other than the
publisher that is intended to permanently archive the work
in a manner that preserves the content and layout, and is
capable of doing so. This information is not required to
appear in the work itself.
If we allow such dizzying levels of liberality,
then it is pretty much "anything goes"! Besides,
publishing with a publisher that still prints hard copies
effectively IS archiving, but the Code is clearly not
concerned with "effectively", and it just opens up
a huge scope for everyone to disagree on the interpretation
of the Code, thereby causing instability and nomenclatural
chaos (none of which affects Zootaxa...)
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
wrote:
Subject: RE:
[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -
one new species
To: "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
"'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 9:31 AM
I would see the criteria
for availability more liberally. Publishing
with a publisher that archives all its publications anyway
is an intention to archive.
Being
pragmatic.
Frank
Dr Frank
T. Krell
Curator of Entomology
Commissioner, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature &
Science
2001 Colorado Boulevard
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Phone: (+1) (303)
370-8244
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
Test your powers of
observation in The International Exhibition of
Sherlock Holmes, open until January 31. And prepare your
palate for
Chocolate: The Exhibition,
opening February 12.
The
Denver Museum of Nature
& Science
salutes the citizens of metro Denver for helping fund
arts, culture and science through their support of the
Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD).
-----Original
Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: Sunday,
January 24, 2016 12:42 PM
To: 'Stephen
Thorpe'
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
two names online published - one new species
I can confirm that the
Archive was added to this record at 2016-01-23
12:21:46.330 UTC, by the same login account that created
the original registration. Following the principle that
the work becomes available when all requirements are
fulfilled (see my previous email reply to Laurent on this
list), and assuming all other requirements for publication
are met, my interpretation would be that the date of
publication for purposes of priority should be 23 January
2016. If numerous copies of the paper edition were
simultaneously obtainable prior to this date, and if the
paper edition is in compliance with the Code for published
works printed on paper, then the date of publication for
purposes of priority should be interpreted as the date on
which numerous copies of the printed edition were
simultaneously obtainable (see Art.
21.9).
What is, or is
not
visible through the ZooBank website is
irrelevant. The Code makes reference to content in the
Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature, only a
subset of which is visible on the website itself. Future
versions of the ZooBank website (pending development
support) will include more robust and publicly visible
documentation of when specific items were added or
amended.
Aloha,
Rich
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:25 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
Doug Yanega > Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
engel > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
names online published - > one new species >
> Doug, > > I'm not sure that this was
at all helpful! The addition of the archive > info
isn't date stamped (at least not for public view). Now
the record > misleadingly looks like valid online
first publication on 4 January 2016:
>
http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
>
> As far as I
know,
the print edition may not be
published yet (all we > know is that it is the January
2016 print issue, which could be > published in
February for all we know). So there may be no way to >
determine the true date of availability for the new names.
Even if we > can get a definitive date on the hard
copy, this doesn't help much, unless it is on or
before 4 January 2016.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 24/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
[Taxacom] Important note
Re: two names online published -
> one new species
>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
"engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
> Received: Sunday, 24 January, 2016,
7:34 PM > > I sent a note to the authors of
the > Kinzelbachilla paper (who had not > been
CCed before as Mike Engel had), and they said they have
fixed > the ZooBank record so it now includes the
archive. Accordingly, for > the public record, if
we follow the guideline as Rich suggested, all >
of the criteria for availability have now been fulfilled
for the name in their work.
>
> Most interesting of all, however, if
that they disagree regarding > these two papers
describing the same taxon, despite both being from >
essentially the same type of amber deposit:
>
>
"By the way, it is not the same thing, the eyes, for
instance, are > strikingly different."
>
> In other words,
this may not be a matter of competing for priority,
> after all, as Hans had originally supposed.
>
>
Peace,
>
> --
> 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list