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

[Stephen Thorpe]

It may be a bit of a simplification, but basically it is what I sincerely believe to be the case, yes. So either I am "delusional", or I am basically correct. Let's look at what I actually said, bearing in mind that Zootaxa uniquely publishes typically 10 articles per day, five days a week: If Zootaxa actually had to archive every article before publication, it simply would not be possible. I recall having a private conversation some time ago with a relevant person not far from here, who explained it to me in these terms ("straight from the horses mouth", as we say). So, that is why the requirement was watered down (rather drastically watered down, I might add). It would, of course, also have been a strain on other journals/publishers to actually have to archive, but it would have been a particularly acute problem for Zootaxa, being as it is so very prolific. But there is nothing too terrible or unethical or implausible about any of this. Not in itself anyway. All I am suggesting is that the original idea to require actual archiving of everything was watered down when it was realised that Zootaxa couldn't possibly achieve that requirement. What's the big deal?

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>
 Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 12:00 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 Just a quick question concerning this
 statement:
 
 > But because
 Zootaxa is too prolific to actually be able to archive
 > everything quickly enough, the archiving
 requirement was watered down to a
 >
 statement of intent to archive.
 
 Is this a lie (i.e., are you oersinally aware
 of the untruth of your statements)? Or, are you really THAT
 delusional?
 
 Aloha,
 Rich