[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Publication and the Code
Snipped from my previous message:
If it came to a case before the ICZN, then there is no reason why ICZN would
not accept "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" as a nomenclaturally valid name.
After all, it ticks all the right boxes in the Code. This is not an
endorsement of the publication, BTW; it's just that the Code's rules regarding
what constitutes valid publication (Article 8) are so vague and anemic that it
is not difficult to fulfill the Code's criteria. Self-publication is
implicitly permitted as long as a token effort is made to provide a public and
permanent scientific record.
The ICZN Code contains recommendations regarding the desirability of
publication in 'appropriate scientific journals', and that it be deposited in a
library. But because these are mere recommendations, they might as well be
written in invisible ink.
In response, Brad McFeeters wrote:
> No, I think "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" is obviously
> invalid by ICZN standards, because Dinosauria International
> hasn't made a print edition available for libraries (at
> least, I see no mention of such in the .pdf or elsewhere on
> their website).
Having a print edition deposited in libraries is not a requirement of the ICZN
Code, merely a recommendation.
Nevertheless, Article 8.6. states:
"Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper.
For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be
accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a
statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been
deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are
identified by name in the work itself."
However, the "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" description is clearly intended to
be published in printed form. The second page (page II) makes reference to
"Front Cover", "Inside Front & Back Covers", and "Back Cover". So the PDF is
clearly designed to be printed, and is not simply a website. The authors could
simply argue t
ng to the iczn.org FAQ, "A proposed
> amendment to the Code outlined mechanisms to allow
> publication of nomenclatural acts in electronic-only
> journals (but not on websites or other transient electronic media)."
> And Dinosauria International is clearly a website, not a
Firstly, at this stage this is only a *proposed* amendment.
Secondly, the ICZN Code never (never EVER) mandates that a new name has to
appear in a scientific journal in order to be valid. This is a recommendation,
Lee Hall wrote:
> Why be worried about this? It's not in a legitimate journal, and
> therefore it isn't a legitimate publication. Thus, it has as much
> merit as some scribbles on a fancy napkin.
See above. There is nothing in the ICZN Code about a name having to appear in
a "legitimate journal" in order for it to be valid.