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

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Stephen,

> 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

While "all too frequently" is a qualifier I'm not sure I would agree with; in principle we seem to be in agreement otherwise.

> , except of course for anything published using the Zootaxa model.

Now you're just trying to bait me, aren't you? :-)

> >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"???

OK, let me elaborate. What I mean is, you and others seem to be branding cases where works published both in paper and electronically are available from the paper edition as a "Problem".  I get some satisfaction out of seeing this view advocated so strongly as you do.  This is not one of the ambiguous parts of the Code.  Art 21.9 is pretty clear on this point. But the original "problem" was that the Code did not allow any electronic publications, yet the publication world was clearly moving in the electronic direction.  Lots of arm-waving ensued, and an Amendment was drafted in 2008.  More arm-waving ensued, as the public commented for nearly four years on the wording of the Amendment.  Then in 2012 there was a bunch more arm-waving within the Commission about the final wording, and then it was published in September.  At the time, the big fears were that we would build it, but no one would come.  Or it would break. Or any number of concerns.  Then a few years passed, and much to my personal surprise, there were WAY fewer problems than I had anticipated.  I thought for sure all sorts of complex issues would arise, but they didn't.  Early on several of in the Commission noted the ambiguities of Dates of Publication, and of the Article 9.9 issue, but despite those calls of concern, no one really seemed too concerned.

Now we suddenly see that people are concerned (which, in the grand scheme of things, is a GOOD thing, because it means that people are starting to pay attention).  And we're back to a bunch of arm waving again.  I don't mean that disparagingly -- better to be criticized than ignored. But the part that's funny (and somewhat heartening) to me is that, where in the beginning the "problem" was that electronic publication was considered the outlier; now it seems that what used to be the standard model (non-Code-compliant online editions, followed by Code-compliant paper editions), seems to be branded as the "Problem".  Like I said, I think that must be regarded as a good thing.

Aloha,
Rich