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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Rich,

So now we are speaking in pure rhetoric, are we? The alternative view to my "delusional view", and the view you must therefore hold, is that the impracticality of a requirement for Zootaxa to actually archive everything before publication had no significant bearing on the watering down of that specific requirement to a statement of the mere intention to archive? Sounds like a choice between the "delusional" and the implausible!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at hawaii.rr.com> 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>, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 12:33 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 > 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.
 
 OK, thanks. That answers my
 question.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich