[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Stephen Thorpe]

So, what you are saying, in effect, Rich, is that we currently lack a well defined system for electronically published zoological nomenclature, and will need to radically overhaul the Code in order to achieve such a system! Until then, whenever it may come, we must deal with taxonomic names with no defined priority. That's "interesting"! We can be confident that the Magnolia Press publishing model will pass all future developments intact, and, after all, who really cares about other publishers and their various publishing models ...

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au, Frank.Krell at dmns.org
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 9:44 PM
 
 All,
 
 Alas, my eyes began to water and the eyelids began to droop
 while trying to read through this thread.  I'm not sure
 how much has been addressed, and what the main points of the
 debate are, but the thread does touch on a couple of
 "actual" issues (as opposed to violent arm-waving).
 
 Issue #1: establishing date of publication for purposes of
 priority.
 
 Consider the following sequence of events:
 
 1. June 1 2014: A journal exposes a PDF for a work
 containing the description of a new animal species name
 online as an "early view".  It does not contain a
 ZooBank registration for the work, and the work has not yet
 been registered in ZooBank.
 2. June 5 2014: The work is registered in ZooBank, but the
 ZooBank registration does not include an ISSN or indication
 of an online archive. The publication date in ZooBank is
 entered as "2014".
 3. June 10 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include an
 ISSN number for the Journal.
 4. June 15 2014: A revised version of the PDF, which
 includes the ZooBank registration number, is posted online.
 It declares the publication date (within the PDF) to be June
 16 2014.
 5. June 20 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include
 the intended archive for the work.
 6. June 25 2014: The publication date entered in ZooBank
 record is updated as June 22 2014.
 7. June 30 2014: Numerous identical copies of a
 paper-printed edition of the work are obtainable.
 8. January 5 2015: The publisher uploads a copy of the PDF
 to the indicated Archive.
 
 So.... what is the date of publication (in the sense of the
 ICZN Code, for purposes of priority)?
 
 June 20 is the earliest date on which all criteria had been
 met. However, some have argued that one cannot update a
 ZooBank record and thereby make an electronic edition
 available; therefore the date or publication (in the sense
 of the ICZN) should be 30 June (when the paper edition is
 published).  Others have argued that the date of
 publication for purposes of priority should be the date on
 which the first electronic version of the work itself was
 obtainable (June 15th, in this case), even though the
 ZooBank record was later amended to include the requirements
 (that is, even though the work was not available from June
 15-June 20 due to the missing archive indication in ZooBank,
 once the ZooBank record is corrected, the date of
 publication for purposes of priority reverts to the date of
 obtainability of the work itself).  Does the date as it
 appears on the work itself carry any meaning for purposes of
 priority?  The Code requires that electronic editions
 include the date of publication, but it's not clear whether
 the stated date has any more relevance to the date of
 publication in the sense of the ICZN Code than stated dates
 of paper-printed works.  Finally, does the date entered
 in the ZooBank record have any bearing on the actual date of
 publication? Or is it only have meaning after a verification
 system for ZooBank is in place?
 
 A couple points:  
 - There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the
 preceding paragraph.
 - Item #8 in the list above is irrelevant.  The Code
 does not require that the electronic work actually be
 deposited in an Archive; only that the ZooBank record
 indicates the intended archive.
 - All of these problems disappear if we establish a system
 whereby registered = available (with traditional
 "publication" being an optional, perhaps recommended
 practice, but not part of the requirements)
 
 Issue #2: Homonyms aplenty?
 
 When works are published in both electronic and paper
 editions, and the electronic edition is unambiguously in
 compliance with the Code, how much difference must there be
 in terms of content between the paper edition and the
 electronic edition before the two are considered separate
 works?  Addition of page numbers?  Changes in
 formatting? Correction of typos?  Addition of
 substantial text? Change of authorship? Alteration of the
 spelling of a new name?  Addition (or removal) of a new
 name? Changing of a type specimen designation of a new
 name?  The works are never "identical" because one is
 ink on paper, and the other is an electronic binary file.
 The issue is that there is broad continuum between examples
 where we would all agree the two editions are of the "same"
 work, and examples where we would all agree the two editions
 represent distinct works.  But we don't have a clear
 idea of where along that continuum we would start regarding
 the works as different, and the names contained in them as
 synonymous homonyms.
 
 A couple points:  
 - There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the
 preceding paragraph.
 - All of these problems disappear if we establish a system
 whereby registered = available.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich