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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Rich, 

>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.<

True, but overly simplistic in outlook! The whole problem is what to do when the Code compliance of a publication is in a fuzzy gray area. This happens all too frequently, except of course for anything published using the Zootaxa model.

>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<

I do not understand this statement! The current "kerfuffle" is still about electronic publication. What are you referring to be "a few paper-based publications"???

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published	-	onenew species
 To: "'Adam Cotton'" <adamcot at cscoms.com>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 10:17 AM
 
 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.
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.