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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

I tried to avoid using big words. Article 8.5 states
 "To be considered published, a work issued and distributed
  electronically must [...]
      8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, "

This means that for a publication that states 4 Jan. as the date
of publication, there is a one-day window in which the work
must actually be published. And it can only be published if the
ZooBank-entry is completely in order at that moment. Once the
window has closed, it can no longer be published in a
Code-compliant way. A new publication with a new date is
necessary (although in this case the print run will likely take care
of the problem, in the traditional way).

That is what the Code says, quite explicitly. And this does make
 sense.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>; 
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Cc: "'engel'"'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one 
new species


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

Hmm... not sure I follow.  Let's assume the work itself was complete for all 
requirements for e-Publication on 4 Jan, but the ZooBank record was not 
complete (e.g., missing Archive) until 23 Jan. Are you saying that the work 
is published in the sense of the Code on 23 Jan?  Or are you saying a "new 
publication" is required?  If you follow the logic of Laurent (as I do), 
then the work was not published in the sense of the Code from Jan 4 up until 
Jan 22, because the requirements for publication were not met until Jan 23. 
Before that date, the work was not published in the sense of the Code. 
Hence, no need for a "new" publication.

The only uncertainty (in my mind, anyway) is how to interpret and apply the 
term "issued" as it is used in various articles of the Code.  For example, 
Art. 8.1.2. says that a work "must be obtainable, when first issued, free of 
charge or by purchase".  It refers to the unqualified "work", not "published 
work".  So, in the example above, was it "first issued" on 4 Jan, or on 23 
Jan (in the sense of the Code)?  Presumably it would have been obtainable 
free of charge or by purchase on both dates; but it can only have been 
"first issued" on one date. Having looked at all of the articles that 
include the word "issued", I'm reasonably certain we're still OK following 
the "date of publication is the date on which all criteria are met" 
approach, even with the "issued" business.  But I can also see how some 
might argue otherwise.

Once we get this publication date business sorted out, we can move on to the 
next "big" question related to electronic publication: how best to apply 
Art. 9.9. Lots of thorny semantics in that one....

Aloha,
Rich





-----
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2015.0.6176 / Virusdatabase: 4489/11398 - datum van uitgifte: 
01/14/16
Interne Virusdatabase is verouderd.