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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Rich,

No, I don't think you understand the problem! The problem is 100% with electronic publication. Any mention of print editions is very much secondary. The existence of a print edition mitigates, to some extent, the problem with online first publishing, but still leaves a big problem. The problem is that, unless you do things the Zootaxa way, nobody van definitively work out from the Code if an online first publication is available or not!

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: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "'Adam Cotton'" <adamcot at cscoms.com>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 11:11 AM
 
 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