[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Thomas Pape
tpape at snm.ku.dk
Thu Jan 28 04:30:36 CST 2016
>>> Why not just insist that the final version of record is an exact copy of the final published version.
Producing an "exact copy" is not as easy as one might think, as we well know from both paper printing and DNA replication.
Scientific publishing, which works well for disseminating and exchanging scientific information, is not necessarily the ideal procedure for establishing date-sensitive nomenclatural acts, and certainly not for keeping track of them.
How to best design and implement the "disentanglement" (as of Rich's mail from yesterday) of the scientific issues from those relating to nomenclatural legislation is a challenge for the ICZN, and certainly a hefty one.
/Thomas Pape
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Noyes
Sent: 28. januar 2016 10:45
To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'; 'Frank T. Krell'; 'Stephen Thorpe'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Laurent Raty'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Hi Rich,
Allowance for "Metadata" is just complicating the issue. Why not just insist that the final version of record is an exact copy of the final published version. Easy. Obective. No confusion. Absolutely no problem with English or any other language. If the publishers do not like it then do not publish with them. This is the problem with the Code, it tries to accommodate everything which really is a non-starter.
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/chalcidoidsÂ
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:pylediver at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: 27 January 2016 22:11
To: 'Frank T. Krell'; '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
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list