[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel
Roberto Takata writes:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Augusto Haro <email@example.com> wrote:
> > It seems that Plos One deposits the copies after all in 5 libraries,
> > according to the link.
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/20/does-darwinius-exist/
> > Is thus the only problem that the libraries are not cited in the text
> > of the paper??
> It could be, but Plos has hard copy editions, so article 8.6 probably
> does not apply.
Nope -- PLoS ONE does not print hard copies. (Perhaps one or more of
the other PLoS journals does?)
> At least one elder paper published by Plos have the statement that the
> article was deposited in 5 libraries.
> "In accordance with section 8.6 of the ICZN's International Code of
> Zoological Nomenclature, we have deposited copies of this article at
> the following five publicly accessible libraries: Natural History
> Museum, London, UK; American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA;
> Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France; Russian Academy
> of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan."
Yes; but that was something that the authors did themselves rather
than standard journal policy.
Anyway, panic over: see this comment
from the Manager Editor of PLoS ONE: they have now printed fifty
identical copies of the article and made them available for purchase,
and the ICZN Executive Secretary (backed by another Commissioner)
advise that the article is now validly published, so that the name
Darwinius is now nomenclaturally valid.
So the phantom menace of Rioarribasimia is exorcised.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I don't have any solution but I certainly admire the problem"
-- Ashleigh Brilliant.