[Taxacom] Species descriptions in thesis

[Marla Schwarzfeld]

Thanks very much to everyone for all the helpful replies, both on and off
the list.

Cheers,
Marla

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Pekka T. Lehtinen <pekleh at utu.fi> wrote:

> On 9.6.2013 2:55, Marla Schwarzfeld wrote:
> > Dear Taxacomers,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am describing a number of new species in my Ph.D. thesis, ahead of the
> > peer-reviewed journal publication of the descriptions. However I would
> like
> > the published paper to be the official description. Since my thesis will
> be
> > online, and thus technically fulfill the requirements of the Code, I
> would
> > like to include a statement that the descriptions therein are not the
> > ?real? species descriptions.  I feel I?ve seen similar statements, but
> > can?t find any examples now that I?m looking for one. Does anyone have a
> > suggestion for a standard statement that should be included?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> >
> > Marla
> >
> >
>        I have many times been wondering the STRONGLY DEVIATING PRACTICES
> of different countries regarding the EXCEPTIONAL (OR LESS EXCEPTIONAL)
> POSITION OF THE DOCTORAL THESES, including at least U.S.A, but possibly
> also many other countries.
>        In Finland, this problem has been TOTALLY AVOIDED FOR SEVERAL
> DECADES, at least, and possibly this SOLUTION COULD BE THE BEST ONE FOR
> MANY OTHER (ALL!) COUNTRIES AS WELL.
>        In my country, the DOCTORAL THESIS does not constitute a
> different category of publication, but the THESIS is simply an ALREADY
> PUBLISHED WORK in a peer-reviewed journal (as USUAL for long time,
> including my thesis in 1967 - the much cited REVOLUTIONARY WORK in
> spider phylogeny) or, as MORE USUAL later, a series of separate
> PEER-REVIEWED articles (BUT NOT A LESS official "unpublished" work).
> This would make all questions about availability of taxonomic acts in
> theses UNNECESSARY.
>        Within this system, all descriptions and other taxonomic acts are
> completely EQUAL TO CORRESPONDING things of publications of other kind
> and NO SEPARATE CODE-COMPLIANT (LATER) PUBLICATIONS WOULD BE NECESSARY.
> Of course, as long as this practice will not be OBLIGATORY, all
> individual cases of theses should be TREATED NOMENCLATORALLY AS BEFORE!
>        It is possible that such radical change would be difficult to
> realize in countries, where the thesis has DIFFERENT (LOWER!) VALUE than
> post-doc publications, possibly due to attempts to get more doctoral
> theses than in our system.
>        It is anyway an alternative which could be tested (OR EVEN
> DIRECTLY APPLIED) in other countries as well. I believe that a similar
> system is NORMAL in many European countries, at least in northern
> Europe, and thus not at all restricted to Finland!
>        Pekka T. Lehtinen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
>


-- 
Marla Schwarzfeld
Ph.D. Candidate
CW 405 Biological Sciences Centre
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9
604-440-4306