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

Wed Jan 27 14:25:10 CST 2016

Hi John,

>It is still a big mess and nothing is clear<

On that we agree (except, of course, that it isn't a mess and nothing is unclear if we are talking about the Zootaxa publishing model).

>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<

On this I can't quite agree, for the following reason: language is inherently vague and ambiguous. You have already said that "nothing is clear", and I have agreed. Therefore one cannot simply follow what the Code "says" ('states' actually, since it cannot speak!), because it doesn't make precise and unambiguous prescriptions which can be followed in a well defined manner. Therefore we do need to be pragmatic, though perhaps not quite so "stick it anywhere liberal" as Frank Krell suggests! Your insistence that an unpaginated online first version be denied availability is simply counterproductive and causes more problems than it solves.

Of course, what we actually need is a simple official declaration by the ICZN (perhaps just a couple of sentences) to the effect that metadata doesn't matter and clarifying that online first versions are to be considered available (provided that they are otherwise fully Code compliant). But can the ICZN be bothered?

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27/1/16, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> 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" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
 Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 10:28 PM

 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.