[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 15:26:36 CST 2016
Other publishers were no doubt consulted to some extent, yes. Neverthless, we have ended up in a situation whereby the electronic amendment is optimised to the Zootaxa publishing model, and many other publishers fall into a messy and indeterminate basket. Note that the Zootaxa publishing model wasn't created so as to be fully Code compliant with the electronic amendment. The Zootaxa model predates the amendment by several years. At the very least, Zhang had inside knowledge of what was going to result from the amendment well ahead of time, and thereby had an advantage over other publishers.
These are facts Frank. I cannot be wrong. Not unless you can offer a convincing alternative explanation as to why the electronic amendment fits Zootaxa hand in glove, while other publishers are left in a gray zone. Well?
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, 10:16 AM
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list