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

Tue Jan 26 03:31:04 CST 2016

Hi Paul,

Yes, I am not worried about the particular order, but how much constitutes a date as far as publication goes. In the publication in question (Pohl, 2016) the only reference to the date in the article itself is 

"Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, 287–297"

Is the "2016" unequivocally the date of publication? Instinctively I would say it is not. Therefore the article is not available until the printed version is issued. Perhaps the date of publication is hidden within the publication itself but I cannot find it. This is why I would like the date of publication to be prefixed "Date of publication:" so that there is no doubt.

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: 25 January 2016 18:18
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: 'engel'"'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

A date consists of day, month and year (though not necessarily in that order). I see no requirement to use the exact wording "Date of publication", any format that gets across that it concerns the date of publication should do.

However, if you want to nitpick, there is the question of the publication that indicates it is going to be published on 4, 5, 6, 7 Jan. and is indeed published on one of these days. Arguably, this provides the date of publication plus three other dates.

It looks terribly untraditional and wrong but I see no immediate argument as to why this should not be Code-compliant?

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Noyes" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
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 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - onenew species

> To be nitpicky does the date of publication have to be the actual date 
> of publication or just the year or month and year and does it have to 
> be preceded by "Date of publication"? Those angels are on the head of 
> the pin again!!
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Life Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about 
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: 25 January 2016 15:12
> 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.
> 

_______________________________________________
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.