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

[John Noyes]

Hi Stephen,

I hate to bring this up again but there a good number of us (probably the majority of my colleagues - certainly all the ones that I have talked to) do not agree that an early view version is to be considered available if it differs in any way (including metadata) from the final published version. The fact that some of the most vociferous of you say that metadata does not matter is neither here nor there. It is still a big mess and nothing is clear. If we have a code of zoological nomenclature we must follow what it says not what someone says it is supposed to say or should say. Hopefully these problems can be ironed out satisfactorily and will ultimately not have any serious impact on nomenclature, especially priority.

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 Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 26 January 2016 20:57
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Laurent Raty
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Laurent,

Once again you are mistaken, but that doesn't reflect badly on you, it reflects badly on the the almost bewilderingly confusing way that the Code has been written.

As long as the early view file is considered to be the version of record (with preregistration on ZooBank truly indicated within), all that matters is that the PDF file for it contains something which can be reasonably interpreted as a date of publication. If the subsequent print edition is different in any regard, this is irrelevant.

So, in your example a statement "Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in the online edition contains a date of publication (incompletely specified as 2015), so, all other things being equal, is Code compliant. It is irrelevant what happens after that. What is technically made available is the online first PDF (which probably never gets archived, but actual archiving isn't actually a Code requirement!)

It is all a big mess but a few things are clear enough.

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, 9:30 AM
 
 Stephen,
 
 When an early view file issued
 in 2015 gets included in a 2016 volumes,  an  original statement "Systematic Entomology (2015), DOI:
 
 10.1111/syen.#####" (as in the
 yet-to-be-published file here: 
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12157/epdf
 ) is
 *changed* into a statement
 "Systematic Entomology (2016), 41, ##-##." 
 (as in this file: 
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12142/epdf
 , which is
 registered in ZooBank as
 being published on 12 Aug 2015: 
 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoo
 bank.org:pub:38D703ED-127A-4DB0-8153-8D78AF4AC212
 ).
 
 The year that appears in
 this statement in the final file (the only one  that remains) is *not*, nor is even *intended*  to be, the year of  publication of the pdf  file that we are trying here to make "published".
 
 It is the year of publication of the print  run.
 
 And of nothing
 else.
 
 Cheers, Laurent -
 
 
 On 01/26/2016 08:43 PM,
 Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Laurent,
 >
 
 > You
 are contrasting "in the work itself" with  "metadata", but this  > isnot  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
 _______________________________________________
 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.
_______________________________________________
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.