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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

I am with Laurent Raty on this issue. There is just
the one date of publication (obviously, "valid publication"
is not part of the zoological Code at all).

If an electronically distributed paper appeared on 4 Jan.
and stated the date of publication to be 4 Jan. then, either
it was published (in the sense of the Code) on 4 Jan, or
it was not published at all.  I hope we agree that a later
alteration in ZooBank did not retroactively get it published
on 4 Jan.  But it would be contrary to everything in the Code,
to assume it was published when the registration in ZooBank
was completed (23 Jan.). Compare Article 7 which
emphasizes that "a new scientific name, but also [...] any
nomenclatural act or information likely to affect nomenclature "
must be published if it is to count.  An alteration in ZooBank
does not constitute publication (in the sense of the Code).

A new publication (meeting the requirements of Article 8) is
required for the name to become available.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
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>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - 
onenew 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
>