Taxacom: Clarification RE e-publication (zoology) - new name has ZooBank LSID (or doesn't), publication does not

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Tony!

 

The example you give happens all the time (i.e., the date given in ZooBank for publication is not correct).  The date of publication as indicated in the ZooBank record does not carry any weight in terms of what the *actual* date of publication is (for purposes of establishing nomenclatural priority).  Art 21.9 says that whichever edition (paper or electronic) first fulfills the requirements of the Code is the date that should be used.  So if a work is intended to be published on paper in 2017, but is actually published in a Code-compliant way electronically in 2016, then the date of publication is when the electronic edition was first obtainable.  The date indicated in the ZooBank record is not in any way “binding” and should be corrected if there is an error.  As far as I can tell, the stated date of publication for the electronic edition is 30 December 2016, so I have corrected the ZooBank record accordingly (again, this is non-binding, but should be corrected if there is an error, as there appears to be here). So, I have made the necessary correction in ZooBank.

 

Now, if it turns out that the electronic edition of this work is not published in the sense of the Code, and the work was not published on paper until April 2017, then I would update the record to reflect this.

 

So, yes!  Your thinking is spot-on, as far as I can see.

 

Aloha,

Rich

 

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbs.bishopmuseum.org%2Fstaff%2Fpylerichard.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cca43261054c34d95bb1f08db2dc32147%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638154088344897672%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4gRapiCB7pB4ZXkvXmc3IOGvil%2BMeXTKUJhNMbb8gdo%3D&reserved=0> BishopMuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

 

From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 8:15 PM
To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Clarification RE e-publication (zoology) - new name has ZooBank LSID (or doesn't), publication does not

 

OK, applying my new found understanding...

 

ZooBank has a work "Total evidence phylogenetic analysis and reclassification of Euschistus Dallas within Carpocorini (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Pentatominae)" by Bianci et al., with the ID E09D2675-0F2B-4AAE-9837-257E0B18BC52, plus included taxa, registered as dating from 2017. However the online version of the work, containing the ZooBank IDs, is stated as first published online 30 December 2016, also with "© 2016 The Royal Entomological Society" on the front page. Can we therefore presume that the correct date for the work and its included taxa is therefore 2016, and the ZooBank record/s are in error?

 

Just checking that my understanding is now correct, or maybe I am still missing something...

 

Of course I am not ignoring the possibility that ZooBank, like other online systems, might contain errors; I am just interested as to whether this is a justifiable method to detect them.

 

Regards - Tony

 

 

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 09:17, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com <mailto:tonyrees49 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Rich, all,

 

Now I do see that there is something in the Code Online that covers this situation:

----------------

Examples. Evidence of registration is given by stating information that would be known only if the registration has occurred, such as the exact date of registration or the registration number assigned to the work or to a new name or nomenclatural act introduced in the work

-------------------

So the error was on my part, not reading/understanding this example sufficiently.

 

However in my defence I did search ZooBank for this work (by first author surname) and did not find it (because as we now know the ZooBank record for it had not been upgraded to "published") which led me to believe that the *work* had not been registered. However due to your (Rich's) familiarity with the system, you will know that a name cannot be registered without being accompanied by a corresponding registration for the work - I did not know this.

 

I think the issue is that the world has changed. Prior to e-publication, if a work was not available, that flowed through to its included nomenclatural acts being unavailable as well. Now it is the other way around - if a minimum of one of the included nomenclatural acts is registered in ZooBank, then the work is available, since it must have been registered as well, even if nobody can see that...

 

Regards to all - Tony

 

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cca43261054c34d95bb1f08db2dc32147%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638154088344897672%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AF17LwUzRwvN7b2AdOOudjV0S4cna%2FNfomKGCS9ZSt4%3D&reserved=0