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

[Laurent Raty]

This example IS nonsense but not for this reason. It is nonsense because 
it uses words in a sense that is not consistent with the Code.

It is wolly impossible that an "author discovers the omission after the 
work is published", because the consequence of the omission is that the 
work is not published.

But I have written this before.

Cheers, Laurent -


On 01/24/2016 10:18 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> LOL! You are right, but so am I! I am right that the example is nonsensical! Why? Because registering an online work on ZooBank after it has been published ALWAYS means that the work is unavailable earlier than the registration date. It matters not one whit whether the author stated in the work any registration date or any other sort of evidence for the preregistration that never happened! As examples go, this one is highly misleading, introducing an obvious general point by way of a specific red herring! The Code is full of such confusing nonsense.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 25/1/16, Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com> wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -onenew	species
>   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:04 AM
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>   To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
>   "Adam Cotton" <adamcot at cscoms.com>
>   Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:59 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
>   published -onenew
>   species
>
>
>   > Adam,
>   >
>   > OK, that makes some sense. Note however that this isn't
>   an issue about
>   > "e-only published names", it is also about online first
>   names, and their
>   > effective dates of publication. Back to that example,
>   OK, it seems to be
>   > saying something along the lines of "if the only
>   evidence that an author
>   > provides, in a work, of ZooBank preregistration, is the
>   (purported) exact
>   > date of registration, but that date is incorrect, then
>   the work is
>   > unavailable". However, it would be a rare (I'm not sure
>   that it has ever
>   > happened?) and somewhat foolish choice for an author to
>   provide only that
>   > as evidence, but, more to the point, it still seems to
>   be at odds with:
>   >
>   > 8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of
>   registration does not make a
>   > work unavailable, provided that the work can be
>   unambiguously associated
>   > with a record created in the Official Register of
>   Zoological Nomenclature
>   > before the work was published
>   >
>   > Cheers,
>   >
>   > Stephen
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   EXACTLY!
>
>   The whole point of the example is that he stated a
>   registration date as
>   proof in the work, but totally forgot to register it at
>   Zoobank until AFTER
>   publication. The important word in 8.5.3.3 is "before" in
>   the last sentence.
>
>   Adam.
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   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.
>