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

Mon Jan 25 17:16:54 CST 2016

>What has the current state of this debate got to do with the original question?<

Since you asked, I will give you the courtesy of an answer: the original thread began with someone pointing out that the same species of fossil strepsipteran had apparently been described twice as new, at about the same time, but that there was an issue with Code compliance with the Electronic Amendment. They asked the question: which name is valid? Just because a simple question can be asked does not necessarily mean that it has a simple answer. It doesn't! In fact, it has no objectively defined answer, beause the issues have not been properly thought through by the ICZN prior to the issuing of the Amendment. I was offering an explanation as to how and why this is so.

As for your other comments about the structure of meetings, I cannot have made myself sufficiently clear! Why was a crucial issue for the Amendment left to the last minute of a single meeting to raise? Why was it then ignored? The issue requires weeks of careful deliberation! It certainly seems to me that crucial issues have been glossed over or even ignored altogether, leaving many publishers now not knowing where their practices stand in realation to Code compliance with the Amendment.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 26/1/16, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 12:02 PM

 Stephen,
 although
 clearly I am not a part of this committee, I have chaired a
 few. One thing they have in common is agenda's (not your
 meaning of the word I mean structure). I have to agree with
 what Frank said here. If they follow the typical set up of a
 managed committee any new item would come up under other
 business, which is generally last on the agenda. The agenda
 also sets a time limit. So items under other business often
 does not have a serious amount of time and is often held
 over to the next meeting, held over as an agenda item. That
 said, it is also very unlikely that any committee will vote
 affirmative for new business if the case is not made and
 made convincingly. Frank may feel what he put in was an
 important issue, and clearly it has become so. However, he
 also seems to accept that this is how committees
 work.
 Committee's
 require a lot of cooperation, on the part of all members.
 They are also very responsible for what they do. So they
 have to err on the side of caution. 
 In what you have done here, some 120
 mails over 3 threads I think. What have you achieved? To
 achieve a goal with a committee requires being proactive,
 yes, but not an activist. I said on the other thread there
 is a way to accomplish change, there is also a way to not
 accomplish it. It also requires staying on topic, not
 wandering. What has the current state of this debate got to
 do with the original question?
 Cheers, Scott
 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at
 8:24 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 Actually,
 it was Rich who snuck Taxacom back in again, after having
 conducted an off-list conversation for a while. Like you, I
 just clicked "reply to all". I was unaware that
 taxacom was back in, but no matter.

 I see that you made no comment re the ownership situation
 for Magnolia Press! Presumably you got that one wrong!

 >At our publishers meeting in London, it came up late in
 the day and I did not succeed to make its relevance
 sufficiently clear to the person who led the meeting. It was
 decided that we deal with it if ever problems emerge. Of
 course they would and they did, but at the time, this was
 not clear to everybody.<

 Hold on! "Publishers meeting"? What's
 that? "Person who led the meeting"? Who was that?
 So, let me see if I understand: a crucial issue relating to
 the proposed Amendment came up late "in THE day"
 and only came up at all because you thought to raise it. But
 since "THE day" was at an end, nobody could be
 bothered dealing with it! Hmmm ...

 So,

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------

 On Tue, 26/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 wrote:

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

  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>,
 "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>

  Cc: "'engel''" <msengel at ku.edu>

  Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 11:13 AM

  Now this is funny again.

  You, Stephen, included Taxacom. I just replied to all
 :-)

  And as I said, I am out again where I should

  be.

  Oh, wait, why was the preliminary

  version issue not dealt with? At our publishers meeting
 in

  London, it came up late in the day and I did not succeed
 to

  make its relevance sufficiently clear to the person who
 led

  the meeting. It was decided that we deal with it if
 ever

  problems emerge. Of course they would and they did, but
 at

  the time, this was not clear to everybody. You do not
 have

  much experience with committee work, do you? It had
 nothing

  to do with Zootaxa. And yes, even if you don’t believe
 me,

  it had nothing to do with Zootaxa.

  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).

 _______________________________________________

 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.

 -- 
 Scott
 Thomson
 Museu de Zoologia da
 Universidade de São PauloDivisão de Vertebrados
 (Herpetologia)
 Avenida Nazaré,
 481, Ipiranga04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
 Brasilhttp://www.carettochelys.com
 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728Skype:
 FaendalimasMobile Phone: +55 11
 974 74 9095