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

[Richard Pyle]

Once again, I should remind everyone that ZooBank registration and e-publication are two separate things.  ZooBank LSIDs were included in paper-based publications as early as 1 January 2008 -- before the Amendment for electronic publication was even proposed.  As I said previously, it's been very strange to watch how a wave of consternation about a few electronically published works back in 2012 has now flipped around to cause all this kerfuffle about a few paper-based publications.

Just a few short years ago, most publications that were produced both on paper and electronically were made available under the Code through the paper edition.  Now we are branding what used to be the standard as a "problem". As I said before, I guess we should consider this a good thing (and clear support for the intention of the Amendment, if not its precise implementation).

While there is no justification for ignoring the online first version for the reason that it was (supposedly) 'not meant to be Code compliant'; there certainly IS justification to ignore the online first version if it is NOT Code compliant.

Aloha,
Rich


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Adam Cotton
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -
> onenew species
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Adam Cotton"
> <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> Cc: <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published -
> onenew species
> 
> 
> > Adam,
> >
> >>I would suggest that this paper is  actually only available from the
> >>printed edition, and any [p]re-publication  online versions were not
> >>meant to be Code compliant<
> >
> > You are unequivocally wrong! I have no idea why the "first published
> > online" information is missing from print edition contents page and
> > work itself, but that has no bearing on anything! Note that the work
> > itself (please confirm this for the print edition) does quote the
> > ZooBank registration number (just under the abstract), and the web
> > page for the article on the publisher's web site
> > (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12158/abstract) does
> > state 'Article first published online: 4 JAN 2016'. There is no
> > justification whatsoever for ignoring the online first version for the
> > reason that it was (supposedly) 'not meant to be Code compliant'!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> Yes, you are right, it does give the ZooBank registration code beneath the
> abstract in the printed version, and a ZooBank registration for each of the
> 3 new taxa (family, genus and species names) but nowhere in the paper nor
> in the Contents does it state 'Article first published online: 4 JAN 2016'.
> That apparently only appears on the website.
> 
> I agree that absence of indication in the printed version does not in itself rule
> out Code compliant publication for the online version.
> 
> Adam.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.