[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Wed Jan 27 23:53:45 CST 2016
Yeah... blame me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:51 PM
> To: Damien HINSINGER; Ian Harrison
> Cc: John Noyes; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
> new species
>
> 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