[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
  From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
  To: pwillis@ozemail.com.au, dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
  Subject: Re: naming conventions and the Net?

  In a message dated 95-08-13 18:14:46 EDT, pwillis@ozemail.com.au
  (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
  purchase, and
  (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.
        <---NOTE
  (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
  itself.  <---NOTE

  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
  graphic process;
  (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;
  (4) microfilm;
  (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.

  WELL---

  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.
  
  G.O.