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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Nonsense! Apart from the bit about "a later alteration in ZooBank did not retroactively get it published on 4 Jan." That much is true.

The term 'publication' means what publishers mean when they claim to have published something. A taxon name may be published in that sense, but nevertheless fail to be made available in the sense of the Code. In such cases, we say that the name, although published, is not validly published.

Stephen
 
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: "engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 9:40 PM
 
 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