[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Sun Jan 24 17:23:23 CST 2016
Stephen,
Why is it not more likely, in the face of first person testimony from
those present, that Zootaxa was optimized TO THE AMENDMENT, and not the
other way around, which you cling to as a drowning man to a piece of
styrofoam? Seems to me that a publisher that looks at the amendment,
and sets their journal to conform to it should be put up on a pedestal
as an example to the world, not accused of nefarious insider trading.
Mike
On 1/24/2016 2:26 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list