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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Laurent,

You are contrasting "in the work itself" with "metadata", but this is not necessarily so. Remember that the concept of "metadata", as used here, didn't exist when the Amendment was drafted. Zhang just subsequently pulled it out of a hat in order to try to save the Amendment from objections relating to "preliminary versions". Anyway, if you contrast "in the work itself" instead with "just on the publisher's web page for the article, or elsewhere", then "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, 287–297" is "in the work itself". This seems like a reasonable and pragmatic interpretation to make, which avoids this particular problem.

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 12:05 AM
 
 Hi,
 
 "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41,
 287–297" is not "in the work itself".
 
 Go to this year's first
 issue of the journal:
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.2016.41.issue-1/issuetoc
 ...and check any of the papers that was
 published online in 2015, you'll 
 find
 out that they all now say "Systematic Entomology
 (2016), 41, 
 pp-pp." too.
 Thus this "2016" is not fixed
 content, it is modified when the paper is 
 inserted in an issue, and it must be
 interpreted as "metadata" if the 
 early view file is to be published.
 
 The only "date" that
 seems to go unmodified from the early view to the 
 final pdf is in the "©2015 The Royal
 Entomological Society" statement in 
 the footers.
 
 Cheers, Laurent -
 
 On
 01/26/2016 10:31 AM, John Noyes wrote:
 >
 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
 _______________________________________________
 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.