[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: naming conventions and the Net?
Another unfortunate listproc accident prevented you from seeing the
following (if you wish to respond to the author directly, make sure
that your response is going to George and not me!):
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 18:39:05 -0400
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: naming conventions and the Net?
In a message dated 95-08-13 18:14:46 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org
(Paul Willis) writes:
> I am not so sure that you are correct here. Chapter 3 of the ICZN
> does not specifically exclude electronic lists (Article 9) and such
> lists do conform to all the criteia set out in Articcle 8 (What
> constitutes publication). Now my copy of the code may be out of
> date (1985) and there could be some development I don't know about,
> I'll have to check with David Ride, but maybe the thing to do is
> test the validity by publishing some insignificant animal on the net
> and see what happens. Has any one got a new mammal out there they
> might use as a guinea pig?
ICZN 1985 Article 8. What constitutes publication.--A work is to be
regarded as published within the meaning of the Code if it complies
with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the
provisions of Article 9.
(a) Criteria to be met.--A work must satisfy the folowing criteria:
(1) it must be issued publicly for the purpose of providing a
permanent scientific record;
(2) it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
(3) it must have been produced in an edition containing
simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous
identical copies. ..
(d) Works produced after 1985.--
(i) A work produced after 1985 by a method that does not employ ink
on paper in conventional printing is to be accepted as published
within the meaning of the Code if it meets the other requirements of
this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
(ii) For a work produced after 1985 by a method other than
conventional printing to be accepted as published within the meaning
of the Code, it must contain a statement by the author that any new
name or nomenclatural act within it is intended for permanent,
public, scientific record.
(iii) For a work produced after 1985 by a method other than
conventional printing to satisfy the criterion of Section a(3) that
it was produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable
copies, the relevant information must be given in words in the work
Recommendation 8A. Undesirable processes.--Authors are strongly
urged to ensure that a new scientific name or nomenclatural act is
first published in a work produced by conventional printing; they
are urged not to use mimeographing or hectographing or, after 1985,
photocopying, or similar processes, or microcard, or microfiche, for
publication of any new scientific name or nomenclatural act.
Recommendation 8B. Responsibilities of authors.--Authors have a
responsibility to ensure that works containing new names,
nomenclatural acts, or information likely to affect nomenclature are
self-evidently published within the meaning of the Code. Authors
should ensure that works contain the date of publication, the number
of copies produced on that date, either the price at which the work
is sold or whether it may be obtained free of charge, and where it
may be obtained.
Article 9. What does not constitute publication.--Notwithstanding
the provisions of Article 8, none of the following procedures or
acts constitutes publication within the meaning of the Code:
(1) after 1930 handwriting reproduced as such by some mechanical or
(2) photographs as such except for microcards and microfiche in
works first issued after 1985;
(3) photocopies as such (e.g., electrostatic or xerographic
reproductions) unless such a method is used to produce a work first
issued after 1985 that satisfies the criteria of Article 8;
(5) proof sheets;
(6) computer printouts as such; <----NOTE
(7) acoustic recordings as such made by any method;
(8) distribution only to colleagues or students of a note, even if
printed, in explanation of an accompanying illustration;
(9) labelling of a specimen;
(10) mention at a meeting; or
(11) deposit of a document (e.g., a thesis) in a collection of
documents, a library, or other archive.
There you have the relevant portions of the Code. If an author can
arrange to have an electronic document PRINTED in a PERMANENT
simultaneous edition of multiple copies (that is, not just stored on
electronic media to be printed out at whim, for which the potential
for erasure exists, or distributed to lists, to which access is
limited) for sale or giveaway at a specified time--and he or she
states in the paper where, when, and how the document is to be
obtained by anyone who wants it, etc.--then it can be considered
properly published under the provisions of the Code.