Taxacom: Dates of e-pubs ahead of print?

[Lynn Raw]

Stephen, If you spot what appears to be an invalid journal registration then it is simple matter of searching Zoobank for duplicate entries of the journal. If duplicates are found then if one of those entries is compliant then your question is answered. If not then wouldn’t it be a good idea to notify those involved of the problem?

Lynn


> On 5 Sep 2022, at 13.15, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
> Lynn, I'm not confusing anything. If someone preregisters an article on ZooBank today, creating a new journal record without a specified archive, then the journal record used has no specified archive, so the registration is ineffectual, EXCEPT that Rich is saying that if there already exists a duplicate record for the same journal, but with a specified archive (created, say a decade ago), then if Rich merges the duplicate journal records into one, the registration looks as though it used the old journal record all along, i.e. the one with the specified archive. What this means is that if you want to look at ZooBank to verify that a pregistration was done properly, you have to consider duplicate journal records which may eventually be merged. This just complicates matters and seems rather messy to my mind. It is basically rewriting history to cover up mistakes.
> Cheers, Stephen
> On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:33:22 pm NZST, Adam Cotton via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/09/2022 04:41, Thomas Pape via Taxacom wrote:
> > Names that are published [for the purposes of zoological nomenclature] after 1930 but fails to conform to Art. 13 are nomina nuda.
> > Names published [for the purposes of zoological nomenclature] after 1999 and complying with Art. 13 but not complying with Article 16 are "unavailable".
> >
> > /Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> I was waiting for further comment on this or direct replies to my 
> question repeated here:
> > What status do you give to names published after 1999 but not 
> > complying with Article 16? I would also treat these as nomina nuda.
> 
> Since there have been no further replies I would like to bring it up 
> again, particularly as it seems to be an unclear consequence of the 
> wording of Code edition 4.
> 
> I feel that while I agree with Thomas Pape's reply, just referring to 
> names which are non-compliant with article 16 to be treated as 
> 'unavailable' is somewhat inadequate. I am particularly thinking of how 
> to treat such names in synonymic lists. Calling these 'Nomen Nudum' is a 
> clear label, but separating them as just 'unavailable' brings up the 
> question 'why?' in the mind of a reader of the synonymic list for a taxon.
> 
> I have generally regarded such names as nomina nuda because they are 
> effectively the same ... names in a work which conforms to Code 
> publication requirements, but which are not available for use as taxon 
> names.
> 
> I shall explain my particular case further, but without specifics. An 
> author published a butterfly book in 2007 in which he described and 
> named several new subspecies without designating type specimens 
> according to article 16.4.1. After publication I contacted the author, 
> who told me that he hadn't realised that the criteria had changed since 
> the 3rd edition (i.e. he hadn't bothered to read the 4th edition). I 
> then explained that he needed to re-describe the taxa in a Code 
> compliant manner.
> 
> In 2012 he published a 2nd edition of the book with holotypes 
> designated, mostly not conforming to article 16.4.2 (indication of 
> location of the holotype) but all of these names not conforming to 
> article 16.1. In the 2nd edition he quoted the descriptions in the 1st 
> edition but clearly treated each name as described in 2007, not 
> explicitly stating them to be new from the 2012 publication. At this 
> stage I gave up trying to advise him, as some names were no more than 
> synonyms and others had been validly described elsewhere.
> 
> My question about names which do not comply with article 16 was not 
> specifically aimed at this case, but was a more general response to the 
> Glossary definition of nomina nuda.
> 
> 
> Adam.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom <https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom>
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu>
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccba03d4577954d15679a08da8f3fe0cb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637979801772375363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x%2FZpzX5e%2B0qTFbFPmnPIylmSppAbLnPQXMpDSrcF0SE%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccba03d4577954d15679a08da8f3fe0cb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637979801772375363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x%2FZpzX5e%2B0qTFbFPmnPIylmSppAbLnPQXMpDSrcF0SE%3D&reserved=0>
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.