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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Rich,

Pensoft also uses the Zootaxa publishing model, whereby final metadata are added before any online publication. That has no bearing on my argument. Any publisher, and there are many (one of the more important journals being Journal of Natural History), which follows up an online first edition with a print edition, but which doesn't include the final metadata in the online first edition, is open to doubt and debate regarding nomenclatural availability. But why shouldn't they publish with such a model? Effectively, the ICZN has ratified one publishing model and left any others in a fuzzy gray area. Funny how the one ratified model is the one used by Zootaxa, and funny how the owner of Zootaxa was one of the committee who chose that model as "the one"...

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 29/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk, neale at bishopmuseum.org
 Received: Friday, 29 January, 2016, 11:36 AM
 
 You're trying to bait
 me again, aren't you? :-)
 
 OK, I'll nibble... 
 
 If the Zootaxa model publishes on paper
 concurrently with the electronic edition, the Amendment is
 completely irrelevant to that model. Most other online
 publishing models (e.g., PLoS, PeerJ, Pensoft, and many,
 many others) benefit from the Amendment far more than the
 Zootaxa does, and have done so for years now.
 
 Coincidence?  You
 decide...
 
 Rich
 
 
 
 >
 -----Original Message-----
 > From:
 Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:31
 PM
 > To: 'Laurent Raty'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 > deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 > Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk;
 neale at bishopmuseum.org
 > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
 two names online published - one
 > new
 species
 > 
 > Rich,
 > 
 > How can you not
 agree? The Zootaxa model only publishes online after
 > addition of metadata. Therefore the
 "metadata problem" doesn't arise. Any
 > publisher which does publish online before
 metadata has been added, and
 > there are
 plenty who do, is open to the "metadata problem".
 I really don't
 > understand how you
 can fail to agree with this! You are not making sense!
 > 
 > Stephen
 > 
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Fri, 29/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 wrote:
 > 
 >  Subject:
 RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published
 -
 > one    new species
 >  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "'Laurent Raty'"
 >
 <l.raty at skynet.be>,
 taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >  Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk,
 neale at bishopmuseum.org
 >  Received: Friday, 29 January, 2016,
 11:26 AM
 > 
 >  >
 OK, so you will now
 >  presumably also
 agree that this problem affects all  > online first
 papers
 > which don't  publish using
 the same model that Zootaxa  > does?
 > 
 >  Nope. No agreement
 there.
 > 
 >  Rich
 > 
 >