[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Sun Jan 24 15:16:12 CST 2016

To you. But you are wrong. You won't be convinced otherwise, so it is useless to repeat that other publishers were consulted etc.
You believe what you want anyway.
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; 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,

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.