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

[Frank T. Krell]

Stephen,
You are accusing the Commission to draft the Amendment in a way that it gives an advantage to the business of one of its members.
That's why we are accusing you to comfort yourself in your conspiracy theory. Your theory is neither close to reality nor is it helpful. The ICZN is not that cheap. Yes, seeing causalities everywhere where there are none is tempting and widespread in human culture, but it very often not true.
And, no, Stephen, you won't have the last word here because I am leaving this discussion now and will not see your reply :-)
Back to work

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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 4:36 PM
To: '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>; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Nice try Rich!

>I am saying your premises (what you refer to as "facts") are flawed, 
>and hence there is neither coincidence nor conspiracy<

No that is not what you have been saying. You have been publicly accusing me of "conspiracy theories" (your words), not flawed premises. Now you are just back peddling a little.

>and/or recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners that 
>were ignored?<

Again putting words into my mouth. I made absolutely no suggestion that any recommendations were ignored. I have no idea if any were ignored or not. What I do know is that the answers one gets to questions depends on what questions are asked, how they are asked, how well they are explained, and how well the issue is advertised (I recall, for example, a security manager who said something like "legally, we have to identify security cameras with a sign, but there is nothing to say that sign has to be big!")

>Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the Amendment is a "100% fit with 
>the Zootaxa publishing model"and b) how it "fails for many alternative 
>models"?<

Sure. The Amendment has created a situation whereby effectively "the Zootaxa way is the best way, and everybody else should follow or else risk non-compliance with the Code". The main issue concerns online first publication of articles before final pagination and assignment to a volume/issue. This became such a big problem that the "metadata solution" was quickly drafted as a "band aid", but it is far from ideal. Not all publishers have the resources to do things the Zootaxa way, and why should they have to? Zootaxa apparently still publishes online and print editions (more or less) simultaneously, so the whole online aspect, as someone today already noted on Taxacom, is kind of redundant anyway for Zootaxa. It appears to be there just in case the journal needs to go e-only for some reason (this may increase profit margins by reducing overheads, though, alternatively, hard copy subscriptions might be a good way for researchers to strategically ditch funding, but that doesn't matter for present purposes). So, in summary: basically, the date written on a Zootaxa PDF can be confidently taken to be the date of valid publication, without any complications.

>> and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a significant input into the 
>> Amendment.<<
>Really?  How so?<
By being part of the decision making process. It is a pretty good analogy with something like this: if you were on trial, would you accept even just one of the 12 jurors being related to the victim? As I said, the case for a COI here is pretty clear. I'm surprised that you are claiming otherwise.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: "'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>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 12:02 PM
 
 Sorry, Stephen, but this is
 nonsense.
 
 > The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a 100% fit with  the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative  models; 
 
 Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the Amendment is a  "100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model", and b) how it  "fails for many alternative models"?  Since you assert  this as a "fact", I would expect your elaborations to be  devoid of opinion.
 
 > and (2) the owner of Zootaxa
 > had a significant input into the Amendment. 
 
 Really?  How so?  The only role that all  Commissioners played that was not open to full public access  was the decision on how to craft the final draft of the  ratified Amendment that was voted on.  Could you please  explain where the changes between the originally published  draft and the final published version of the Amendment  differed in a way that favored the Zootaxa publishing model  to the detriment of other publishing models, and/or  recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners  that were ignored?
 
 > So you are saying that is mere "coincidence", are you?
 
 
 No, I am saying your premises (what you refer to as "facts")  are flawed, and hence there is neither coincidence nor  conspiracy.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich