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

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Once we get this publication date business sorted out, we can move on to the next "big" question related to electronic publication ...<

Shouldn't all this "business" have been "sorted out" *before* the Amendment was issued?? People are here debating fine points (but nonetheless crucial points) of the Code for which there are no determinate answers. There are no answers to be worked out, there are only decisions to be made. Only the ICZN can make those decisions, and it should have already done so *before* the Amendment was issued!

Stephen 


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 26/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -	one	new species
 To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: "'engel'"'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 2:01 AM
 
 > 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
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.