[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 27 22:51:08 CST 2016
The discussion is ultimatley about definition. You can't understand the Code without understanding what definitions are, and how they function. A range of examples may help to understand this. Anyway, blame Rich, he brought up the example! But hey, we're all liberal minded adults around here, aren't we, or are we?
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28/1/16, Ian Harrison <iharrison at amnh.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Damien HINSINGER" <hin175 at free.fr>
Cc: "John Noyes" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 5:36 PM
What!!?
I thought the discussion was about science and metadata ...
for a taxonomy based listserve. I see a pretty 'sharp
definition' there - it is a listserve that discusses
taxonomy.
Get back on track.
Ian
________________________________________
From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
on behalf of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:48 PM
To: Damien HINSINGER
Cc: John Noyes; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
published - one new species
Damien,
No, I maintain that my definition of pornography is a
perfectly good one. People use the term in a way that has
vague edges. If you want a definition, it must have sharp
edges. Therefore there is never going to be a perfect fit
between the definition and what people say/think.
Non-indecent pictures of children (or adults, for that
matter, or sheep, ...) can be pornography to some people if
they get aroused by such pictures. You are trying to say
that such pictures can be seen as pornography, but are not
pornography. That makes little or no sense. Basically, if it
gives you a hard on (and it is a representation rather than
an actual person or object), then it is pornography.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28/1/16, Damien HINSINGER <hin175 at free.fr>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
published - one new species
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>,
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
"Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>,
"John Noyes" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>,
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 4:40 PM
Stephen,
We were talking about defining pornography, and I said
that
pictures of children can be seen by some people as
pornography. But pictures of children are not pornography.
Thus your definition is too vague to be clear.
... and we are falling in the difficulty of having a
definition (of pornography, but I would prefer we focus
again on « metadata »)...
To paraphrase you :
"Anyway, it was just a specific example to make the
general
point that reasonable definitions are hard to come up
with"
Damien
PS : As this thread is already too long, I will stop
here...
> Le 28 janv. 2016 à 10:56, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
a écrit :
>
> Damien,
>
> I think you are confusing pornography with indecency.
Not all pornography is also indecent. Pictures of children
playing football is not indecent, but could be pornography
to some unfortunate people out there.
>
> Anyway, it was just a specific example to make the
general point that reasonable definitions are not hard to
come up with (oh dear!)
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 28/1/16, Damien HINSINGER <hin175 at free.fr>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names
online published - one new species
> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>,
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
"Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>,
"John Noyes" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>,
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 3:27 PM
>
> It doesn’t work !
>
> Pictures of children playing to football will elicit
sexual
> arousal responses in at least some people.
> But I’m sure we all agree that your (and our)
family
photo
> album is not a pedophile porn collection.
>
> I don’t encourage you to go and watch some porn,
but
the
> mankind imagination is unlimited in what can "elicit
sexual
> arousal responses » at least in some people...
>
> Damien
>
>
>
>> Le 28 janv. 2016 à 06:33, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> a écrit :
>>
>>> In particular, trying to define "Metadata" is
like
> trying to define pornography<
>>
>> Pornography = representations (verbal, visual,
> auditory, etc.) of a kind which elicit sexual arousal
> responses in at least some people.
>>
>> Now that wasn't so hard (I mean difficult!) was
it?
It
> possibly makes some ferrari commercials count as
> pornography, but perhaps they are to some people!
>>
>> Anyway, the point is that it is not difficult to
come
> up with a reasonably solid definition of metadata for
our
> purposes:
>>
>> Metadata = information added by publishers (not
> authors) to a submitted manuscript. Two documents
which
> differ only in metadata are, by definition, the same
version
> of the publication. Ergo, what is or is not a final
version
> has nothing to do with metadata.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Thu, 28/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
names
> online published - one new species
>> To: "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>,
> "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>,
> "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
>> Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 11:11 AM
>>
>> I agree in the sense that
>> we are primarily limited by English language.
> It's
>> easy to suggest that a couple of sentences could
> provide
>> clarity on the "Metadata issue". What's not so
>> easy is crafting those sentences in a way that
does
> not
>> introduce even more ambiguities. In
particular,
> trying to
>> define "Metadata" is like trying to define
>> pornography*. We all know it when we see
it,
> but... to
>> capture an unambiguous definition is extremely
> elusive.
>> I've worked in informatics circles for decades,
and
>> believe me when I say there is no clear
definition
for
> what
>> it actually means (for a tiny taste, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata)
>>
>> Consider that the Amendment
>> for electronic publication underwent nearly four
years
> of
>> review, and massive amounts of discussion both
within
> the
>> Commission and among the public. It is,
perhaps,
> the most
>> scrutinized and carefully word-smithed part of
the
Code
> as
>> it currently exists. Yet, we have these
seemingly
> endless
>> discussions about parsing its exact meaning.
The
> Code as a
>> whole is full of similar (and worse) ambiguities,
> despite
>> four editions and nearly a century of revisions
and
> careful
>> scrutiny.
>>
>> I believe the
>> Commission should be much more proactive in
issuing
>> Declarations, and I believe these should be
> immediately
>> reflected in the online edition of the Code
(which
is
> the
>> version I now consult routinely). In the
old
> days, we all
>> used to keep our dogged-eared print copy of the
Code
> full of
>> notes and clarifications and whatnot to help us
come
> to
>> consensus on deriving meaning from the words as
printed
> on
>> the pages. Perhaps part of the way forward
for
> the ICZN is
>> to make the online version of the Code itself a
more
>> reliable document, containing not just all of the
> Amendment
>> text, but also relevant Declarations (including
> specific
>> examples), and perhaps even an archived
discussion
> forum
>> related to specific articles. Some of that
> already exists
>> on the 5th Edition Wiki.
>>
>> In
>> any case, one thing we ALL probably agree on is
that
> there
>> is an unacceptably high level of confusion and
> ambiguity
>> concerning not so much the exact wording of the
Code,
> but
>> how best to interpret those words in the context
of
a
> highly
>> heterogeneous reality.
>>
>> Aloha,
>> Rich
>>
>> *With apologies to former U.S. Supreme Court
>> Justice Potter Stewart.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>> On Behalf
>>> Of Frank T. Krell
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:38
>> AM
>>> To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>> Laurent Raty; John
>>> Noyes
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
>> two names online published - one
>>> new
>> species
>>>
>>>
>> Stephen,
>>> We are in agreement in all
>> points here. Several Commissioners are already
>>> bothered, and we will see if the whole
>> Commission can agree (at least in
>>>
>> majority) to proceed in this direction. It might
well
> do. I
>> think most already
>>> agreed that some
>> sort of action and clarification is necessary.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> Dr Frank T. Krell
>>> Curator of Entomology
>>>
>> Commissioner, International Commission on
Zoological
>> Nomenclature Chair,
>>> ICZN ZooBank
>> Committee Department of Zoology Denver Museum of
> Nature
>>> & Science
>>> 2001
>> Colorado Boulevard
>>> Denver, CO
>> 80205-5798 USA
>>> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>>> Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
>>> Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
>>> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
>>> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>>>
>>> Test your powers of
>> observation in The International Exhibition of
> Sherlock
>>> Holmes, open until January 31. And prepare
>> your palate for Chocolate: The
>>>
>> Exhibition, opening February 12.
>>>
>>> The Denver Museum of Nature & Science
>> salutes the citizens of metro
>>> Denver
>> for helping fund arts, culture and science
through
> their
>> support of the
>>> Scientific and Cultural
>> Facilities District (SCFD).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>> On Behalf
>>> Of Stephen Thorpe
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 1:25
>> PM
>>> To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>> Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>;
>> John
>>> Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
>> two names online published - one
>>> new
>> species
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list