[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -onenew species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 16:28:27 CST 2016
Laurent,
OK, I am beginning to understand you better, but I still disagree. The Code itself uses the term "published" is two different ways. Such "homonymy" may not be ideal (particularly in a Code which tries to eliminate homonymy!), but it is not strictly incorrect. Sometimes the Code means "published" in the sense of what publishers mean by "published". Sometimes, and particularly when qualified as "valid publication", the Code means made available (in that special nomenclatural sense). If you were correct (which you are not), then it would be a nonsense to say "invalidly published" or "published unavailable name or work", but these are not nonsense! They are perfectly well defined. Life and the Code are full of ambiguity, vagueness and homonymy. Get used to it! :)
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> 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, 11:20 AM
;)
No,
YOU confuse common language and the language of the Code.
(And the
person who wrote this example did,
too.)
In the Code, "publication"
is ALWAYS and ONLY what you call "valid
publication". What is not "valid
publication", is not published at all.
L -
On 01/24/2016 11:07 PM, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
> Laurent,
>
> Once again you confuse published with
validly published!
>
>
Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 25/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
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, 10:54 AM
>
> 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.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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