Taxacom: Dates of e-pubs ahead of print?

Tue Sep 6 04:15:10 CDT 2022

Short answer:

When we update the Code (Fifth Edition), we’ll probably be proposing some much more substantial changes to how ZooBank and electronic publications and such work.  We have a lot of ideas, and will be distilling them down to a set for the public commentary period.  Probably best to wait until then to debate these things in more detail.

Aloha,

Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbs.bishopmuseum.org%2Fstaff%2Fpylerichard.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4e44df1bc3fe4370d0ee08da8fe85022%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637980525203977546%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nxjWZK0rjXOW24GN%2BkkLF%2BS83Smrc0KfeCgpLxqtPpM%3D&reserved=0> 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.

From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:43 PM
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu; 'Adam Cotton' <thaibaggie at gmail.com>; lynn at afriherp.org; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Dates of e-pubs ahead of print?

So Rich, as I suggested already, why not get the following rule formally put into the Code: 

*Duplicate records of a journal (including the original record) are all deemed to be associated with an archive from the earliest date on which any one of them was explicitly associated with an archive.*

The reason why I don't think it a good idea to leave it as an informal "rule of thumb" is that hardly anybody trying to use ZooBank to determine the date of availability of a name (or even just verify that it is available) will know to check for duplicates of the journal record in cases where the one actually used has no specified archive. They will simply and straightforwardly conclude that the registration was ineffective due to lacking an archive. Somebody else checking the same name, down the track, after you have done a merge, will find very different results! It is this retrospective "revisionist" approach that I'm not comfortable with.

Cheers, Stephen

On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 08:18:13 pm NZST, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> > wrote: 

Hi Stephen,

> 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

You can choose to maintain that opinion if you wish, but I would strongly advise against it.  Because there is nothing in the Code or any other formal ICZN documents (e.g. formal ZooBank policies), I cannot say objectively that your interpretation is incorrect (not can you say that my interpretation is incorrect).  However, we do have some guidance in the form of Art. 8.5.3.3 ("An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published.")

Obviously, we're not talking about an error in stating evidence of registration in this case, so this Article does not directly apply.  However, it does suggest that the spirit of the Code is that inadvertent errors related to ZooBank are not to be used to treat works as unpublished in the sense of the Code.  If I were helping to draft the Amendment text today (with the benefit of hindsight), I would recommend an additional Article similar to 8.5.3.3 indicating that an inadvertent association of a registered work with an incorrect (e.g., duplicate) Journal would not make the work unavailable either.

Sure, you could be a stickler for precision and argue that until the journal record is explicitly identified as a duplicate of another journal, then Art. 8.5.3.1 has not yet been fulfilled.  However, if you want to play that game, then I should point out that there is nothing in the Code or any other official ICZN Documents that states that Art. 8.5.3.1 can be fulfilled by linking a work to a parent journal, and having the online archive "inherited" from the parent journal.  In other words, a strict reading of the Code could be interpreted that each individual article registered in ZooBank must directly indicate the name and Internet address of the online archive.

Obviously, such a strict interpretation of the Code would be disastrous for nomenclatural stability!  So it's not in anyone's interest to interpret the requirements this way.

Indeed, I know I'm not the only Commissioner who follows a rule of thumb whereby when the Code requirements can be interpreted in more than one way, then it's in the interest of nomenclatural stability to favor the interpretation that assumes a work or name is available.  Why?  Because the majority of taxonomists (who are not "Code Warriors") would most likely make that assumption as well, when confronted with an otherwise Code-compliant work, name or act.

Thus, from my perspective, the error we're talking about (duplicate journal) was made when the user accidentally selected the option to "Create a new Journal", rather than select from a list of existing journals. As such, the common-sense interpretation is that the work should have been linked to the correct journal at that time, and therefore the inadvertent error should no more "penalize" the work than an error in stating evidence for registration (per Art. 8.5.3.1) would have.

Again, your free to interpret the rules however you wish in this case, because there is no objectively "correct" interpretation.  But I would urge you to consider following one of the legitimate interpretations that favors nomenclatural stability, as I believe my interpretation would.

Having said that, ever change to every record/field/table in the database behind ZooBank is logged and time-stamped.  Thus, I actually could determine (and display) the date & time when a duplicate journal was merged with its correct counterpart (and the associated affected works within the journal).  I just don't think there is much to gain by doing so.

Aloha,

Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD

Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org <mailto: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 <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> > On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe

> via Taxacom

> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:15 AM

> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ; Adam Cotton <thaibaggie at gmail.com <mailto:thaibaggie at gmail.com> >;

> lynn at afriherp.org <mailto:lynn at afriherp.org> 

> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Dates of e-pubs ahead of print?

> 

> 

> 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 <mailto: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

> 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%2Ftaxaco

> m.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C351

> 5505c817e4d30d7e108da8f2feefd%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%

> 7C0%7C0%7C637979733292704749%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi

> MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000

> %7C%7C%7C&sdata=yBnOa7OdeAjrObvOWEjqzfX5luaNrPmpDgVKt7qERR

> M%3D&reserved=0

> 

> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 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

> 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%7C4e44df1bc3fe4370d0ee08da8fe85022%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637980525203977546%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j41pEtmkesJgxTWopf1Zihpm9LsetKKCDzEWuZY8pLE%3D&reserved=0

> 

> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.