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

Tue Jan 26 03:23:33 CST 2016

I don't follow this.
1) You start off by referring to Article 21.4, which deals
with the date of publication, in the sense of the Code.
And then you deny that the date of publication in
Article 8.5.2 is intended as the date of publication, in the
sense of the Code.  If it is something different, then it is
pointless to refer to Article 21.4, as it cannot apply.
2) If the Editorial Committee intended something different
why didn't they put in something different?
3) The Preamble states "The meanings given to terms
used in this Code are those shown in the Glossary."
4) Anyway, Article 8.5 states three requirements for an
electronically distributed work, and you now postulate
that the second of these requirements does not apply?
It seems a very strange way to run a Code of nomenclature!

As the Code is written, it is very explicit: the publication must
state the date of publication.  And the Preamble makes it clear
that, by definition, there is just the one "date of publication", that
of the Glossary.  If it appeared on some other date, then the
date of publication was not stated in the work (but some other
date), and thus the work does not meet the requirements of
Article 8.5.  It is not published in the sense of the Code.
And I should point out that 8.5.2 does not impose an onerous
requirement, this is not much more difficult than putting a date
in a letter one sends.

As to Article 21, it is not so much that it does not apply,
but it does not bear on the matter.  Article 8.5.2 states a
simple, direct requirement, without room for any qualification.
Article 21 might be thought to bear on the issue of establishing
if something did indeed appear on the date stated, but there
is a logic trap.  Namely, if it appeared on another date, it was
not published in the sense of the Code, and the whole Code
does not apply (just as the Code does not apply to the latest
pop song).

Anyway, that is what the Code says, leaving out any
unwritten parts.

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 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
new species

I will also try to avoid using big words. Article 21.4 states:  "Date
incorrect. If the date of publication specified in a work is found to be
incorrect, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in
existence as a published work is to be adopted. In the absence of evidence
as to day, the provisions of Article 21.3 apply."

The key phrase is: "the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be
in existence AS A PUBLISHED WORK is to be adopted." [emphasis added]

If we ignored the whole "issued" business, then 23 Jan is the earliest day
on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work (in
the sense of the Code).  As such the date of 4 Jan stated in the work, while
fulfilling the requirement of Art. 8.5.2, is deemed an incorrect date, and
Art 21.4 applies.

If I understand you correctly, you interpret Art 8.5.2 as defining a window
of opportunity within which all requirements of the Code must be fulfilled.
Although the Code does not say anything of the kind, I imagine you derive
this interpretation from the phrase "date of publication" in Art. 8.5.2 as
though it *is* the date of publication in the sense of the Code, and unless
the work fulfills the criteria within that particular 24-hour window of time
(actually, 48-hour window if you allow all possible time zones), it fails as
a publication.  Besides causing all manner of nomenclatural instability
(i.e., all cases of electronically published works that stated an incorrect
date of publication within the work itself would not exist as Code-compliant
published works), the Code itself tends to negate this interpretation.

First of all, there is nothing that suggests that Art. 21.4 applies only to
works printed on paper.  Thus, we have to assume that incorrect dates are
possible for both paper and electronic works. Also, if you look at the
wording of Art. 21.2.: "Date specified. The date of publication specified in
a work is to be adopted as correct in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.", the inclusion of the phrase "in the absence of evidence to the
contrary" suggests strongly that the "date of publication specified in a
work" defines a concrete time window in which all requirements for
publication must be fulfilled.

Also, for those discussing whether a stated year (only) fulfills the
requirement of Art. 8.5.2., I refer you to Art. 21.3:

21.3. Date incompletely specified. If the day of publication is not
specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to
be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of
publication, but in the absence of such evidence the date to be adopted is
21.3.1. the last day of the month, when month and year, but not day, are
specified or demonstrated, or
21.3.2. the last day of the year when only the year is specified or
demonstrated.

In our example, Articles 21.3.1 and 21.3.2 would not apply, because in this
case we DO have evidence establishing the earliest day on which the work is
demonstrated to be in existence as a published work.

So, yes -- clearly the inclusion of an incomplete date (e.g., a year only)
fulfills the requirement of Art. 8.5.2.  And, clearly, the work is
considered published on the date when it is demonstrated to be in existence
as a published work (in the sense of the Code).

As I have been trying to explain, the only real ambiguity (in my mind, at
least), is this business with the word "issued", and how, exactly, it should
be interpreted, and where it might impact whether a work is published in the
sense of the Code.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:12 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Cc: 'engel'"'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
> new species
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-----
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.