[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Stephen Thorpe]

Yep, Paul, you are one of the few who understands the problems here. That summary is right on the mark.
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/1/15, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 9 January, 2015, 12:32 AM
 
 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
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.