[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

In the example given by Richard Pyle I have no doubt
that publication only occurs with the paper version.
Art. 8.5 presents requirements for publication, and
8.5.3 requires that at the moment of publication it 
must be registered, with the requirements of 8.5.3.1,
8.5.3.2, and 8.5.3.3 having been met. Any attempt to 
read it differently pretty much negates the whole idea
of having a Code in the first place.

As to the paper that started this thread, the important
issue that remains is indeed the question of what is 
going to be archived, in the line of 8.5.3.1. Is this going 
to be the work that made the nomenclatural act available,
or is it going to be something that for the purposes of
the publisher is the same ...

The argument that no serious publisher would alter the
contents of a work is not all that helpful. Is every user 
of a name going to have to decide "Oh, this name was 
not published by a serious publisher, so I am not going 
to take it into account"; this sounds like a sure way to 
create chaos.

Paul