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

[Tony Rees]

Thanks, Rich.

Regards - Tony


On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 17:27, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
> 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%7Cc6b72cef23b844972f2308db2dc99001%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638154115974644640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GG%2ByUwdFUoFpnu5VOiKL73iLaq9mtcSBYe8spW9uoqU%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *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> 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%7Cc6b72cef23b844972f2308db2dc99001%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638154115974644640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vDUP2CrBZ7HONXePvuLVW3qd0Ndvt15m0Mnkay5PvbI%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>