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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Given that this thread has run for a long time,
and that I hope to have made my points (for
whoever cared to read it), I will wrap it up
(on my part) with just these points:
* "intended date of publication", it seems to me
that this will not help. How about a publication
going online in, say, Jan 2016 which says about
the date: "The senior author worked hard to realize
this magnum opus, with an intended date of publication
of 21 Jan 2012, the 50 year anniversary of his marriage,
but he passed away in early 2010, and did not live to
see it published."
If an adjustment is deemed necessary, something
along the lines of Article 8.5.3.3 seems much clearer.

* Speaking in general, I was already uncomfortable
with early versions of pdf's that are officially to be
counted as publications, although they are to be
altered lated to add metadata or be entirely replaced
by an new pdf. This makes verifying things by going
back to the original publication a process that is
virtual to a considerable degree.

But now, apparently, we are to have pdf's that, after
copies have become available by purchase or free
distribution, are sitting there, waiting for a ZooBank
process to be completed, so that copies will become
available by purchase or free distribution.

And this based on an unwritten part of the Code, that
contradicts what is in the Code, if one takes it at face
value.

This may be politically expedient, but, as writing a
Code of nomenclature goes, this is bad design, to
put it mildly.

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: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
new species


Hi Paul,

> 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.

No, I did not "deny that the date of publication in Article 8.5.2 is
intended as the date of publication".  Of course it is the intended date of
publication!  But the key word here is "intended".  If I understood your
position correctly, you seemed to suggest that inclusion of a date within
the work somehow establishes a "window" of time within which all
requirements for publication must be fulfilled, and if all requirements are
not fulfilled within that stated window, the work cannot (ever) be regarded
as being published.  If this were true, then there would be no need for
articles that address dates incorrectly stated within the work. If I
misunderstood your position, then I apologize.

> 2) If the Editorial Committee intended something different why didn't they
> put in something different?

I'm not sure I understand your question.  If you are asking whether the
Editorial Committee intended Art. 8.5.2 to apply to the intended date of
publication, then we are in agreement.  Where we disagree is in my
(incorrect?) interpretation of your position as being that the date included
in the work must be treated as an exclusive time window, within which all
criteria must be met.  The Code does not say that explicitly, and implicitly
(e.g., Art. 21.2, 21.4) indicates that dates stated within the work may be
treated as incorrect.

> 3) The Preamble states "The meanings given to terms used in this Code are
> those shown in the Glossary."

Agreed; and the glossary defines the date of publication as: "the date on
which copies of the work become available by purchase or free distribution.
If the actual date is not known, the date to be adopted is regulated by the
provisions of Article 21.2-7" It does not invoke the date as stated within
the work of established a defined window within which the work must meet all
criteria for publication. It does refer to Art. 21.2-7, and Art. 21.4
addresses dates incorrectly stated within the work itself.

The problem, of course, is that the glossary was not amended to accommodate
the (novel) situation we have now where all criteria necessary for
publication are no longer included within the work itself.  In 20/20
hindsight, we should have revised this definition along with the amendment
to make it clear that the work becomes available when all requirements are
met.

So we now have a situation where there is some ambiguity in determining the
date of publication.  As I tried to explain in my first post to this thread,
the Commissioners have recognized this problem, and most of the
Commissioners I've spoken with agree that, in the context of this ambiguity,
the interests of nomenclatural stability are best served through
interpreting the date of publication as being the date on which all
requirements are fulfilled.

If you disagree that this is the best approach to addressing the ambiguity,
then we should certainly discuss other approaches.  However, if you are
trying to maintain that the existing wording of the Code unambiguously
establishes (via Art. 8.5.2) that the date stated in the work itself defines
a window within which all criteria must be met, and that there are no
situations in which the date that fulfills the requirement of Art. 8.5.2 can
be interpreted as "incorrect" in the sense of Art. 21.4, then I completely
disagree.


> 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?

When did I postulate any such thing?  What I am refuting is your apparent
assertion that the stated date within the work itself cannot be regarded as
incorrect (i.e., the defined window within which all criteria be met).  Art.
21 clearly accommodates cases where the stated date of publication within
the work are incorrect.

> As the Code is written, it is very explicit: the publication must state
> the date
> of publication.

Agreed.

> And the Preamble makes it clear that, by definition, there is
> just the one "date of publication", that of the Glossary.

Agreed.

> 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.

Agreed, except I would qualify it slightly to say "... then the CORRECT date
of publication was not stated in the work..."

> It is not published in the sense of the Code.

Then why do we have Art. 21.4?  What circumstances would Art 21.4 apply to?
Are you suggesting that it applies only to works produced on paper?  If so,
on what basis would you make such a claim?  If not, then what, exactly, are
we arguing about?

> 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.

And here, I think, is where we fundamentally disagree.

> 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).

It seems you are putting a lot of words into the Code that are not there.

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

At least we can agree on following what is in the Code, and not relying on
any unwritten parts!

I'm sorry, Paul - but I simply do not follow your logic.  I may well be
misunderstanding your point, but it sounds like you interpret the wording of
Art. 8.5.2 as somehow locking some sort of window of time, and not allowing
for an incorrect date to be stated within the work itself.  I would almost
agree that one could legitimately interpret it this way (among other
legitimate interpretations). However, because the wording in Art. 8.5.2
mirrors that of 21.2 (both refer to a stated or specified "date of
publication" within the work itself), and 21.2 clearly accommodates
situations where evidence is contrary to such a stated "date of
publication", I cannot see your position (at least as I understand it) to be
legitimate.

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.