[Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Sep 22 19:41:46 CDT 2018
2018
>But I suppose one could argue that perspective<
To my mind, nobody should want to "argue that perspective", but the problem is that it serves as another source of confusion, i.e. someone wants to verify Code compliance, so they look at the publication record, suppose it has no archive indicated, so click on the journal and see that record also has no archive intended. How many people would then think to search for duplicated journal records to check if any of them have an archive indicated? Even if they did, how many people would consider that a duplicate with an archive indicated solves the problem? It is all just too complicated!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 23/9/18, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Tony Rees'" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>, "'taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "'Thomas Pape'" <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
Received: Sunday, 23 September, 2018, 12:35 PM
I can address this question.
When a duplicate record is discovered in ZooBank, it is
merged with the correct record, and all the records linked
to the duplicate get transferred to the correct. I think
that an error of this sort should not be regarded as a
failure to indicate an intended archive, during the period
of time when the record was linked to the duplicate journal
record. But I suppose one could argue that perspective.
Also, I should point out that
in ZooBank, either the work itself (e.g., article) or the
parent work (e.g., Journal) can have the archive
indicated. So just because a particular journal does not
have an indicated archive doesn't mean a given article
within that journal doesn't have an archive indicated
directly. This has happened a few times, where an author
of a paper in a journal that does not include an indicated
archive has instead asserted the intention of archive the
article directly (e.g., in Zenodo or Internet Arcive).
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist |
Dive Safety Officer
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
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.
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of
> Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:51
PM
> To: Tony Rees; taxacom; Thomas
Pape
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Now 2
species/genera in Placozoa...
>
> BTW Thomas, what about this fairly common
scenario:
> A journal does have a record
on ZooBank with an intended archive, but an
> author creates a duplicate record for the
journal, without an intended
> archive,
and preregisters a publication under the duplicate journal
record
> (erroneously thinking that the
journal has to be registered again anew each
> time a publication is registered!)
Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 23/9/18, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
RE: [Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
> To: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>,
"Stephen Thorpe"
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
"taxacom"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Sunday, 23 September, 2018,
10:49 AM
>
>
Unfortunately, it is more
> complicated
than that.
> The original work was
> published e-only and without evidence in
the work itself of registration in
>
ZooBank.
> The journal PLOS
> BIOLOGY does not provide an intended
archive under its registration in
>
ZooBank.
> Therefore, this
> work cannot be regarded as published for
the purposes of zoological
>
nomenclature in its electronic form.
>
Thus, unless there is a printed version of the work, the
correction does not
> point to a
published work.
> Even the correction
itself does not comply with the ICZN in its electronic
> form.
>
> The placozoan names therefore remain
> unavailable.
>
> The Commission
> is
aware of the problems associated with such published but
non-compliant
> works.
> Until a solution has
> been implemented, it is strongly
recommended to consult with the
>
Commission before attempting to 'resurrect'
> names and nomenclatural acts.
>
> Thomas Pape
>
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
>
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> On Behalf Of Tony Rees
> Sent: 22. september
> 2018 23:47
> To:
Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Now 2
species/genera in Placozoa...
>
> Just for
>
completeness, this is to note that the authors of Eitel et
al.
> (2018) have now published a
correction
> that includes the relevant
zoobank LSIDs to make the names mentioned
> above available.
>
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id.1371/journal.pbio.300003
> 2
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales,
> Australia
>
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 09:09,
> Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > I
> just now
saw the lead author retrospectively register the article
on >
> ZooBank. I wonder if he
understands fully that this does not directly >
> address/solve the problem?
> >
> >
Stephen
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> > On Mon, 6/8/18, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
>
Re: [Taxacom] Now 2 species/genera in Placozoa...
> > To: "Stephen Thorpe"
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: "taxacom"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Monday, 6 August, 2018,
> 12:18 PM > > > On Mon,
6 Aug >
> 2018 at 08:42, Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> > Anyway
> [Big sigh!], the paper
> > appears to be
> published e-only without ZooBank
preregistration, so > the new names don't
> exist anyway!!
>
>
> >
>
Stephen
> >
>
> Hi
> Stephen, that does indeed
appear
> > to
> be the case. I have just sent an email
to the lead author in > Germany to see
> if they wish to rectify the apparent
oversight.
> >
> Best
> >
regards - Tony
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send
> Taxacom
mailing list submissions to: 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 To
subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the
list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance
while
> Assaulting Ambiguity for 31
Some Years, 1987-2018.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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 To subscribe
or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list
at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list