[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Koreanosaurus (regarding PDFs instead of forelimbs)

Out of ignorance: how is publication of PlosOne, Zookeys or Acta
Palaeontologica Polonica issues made sustainable, if it is free both
submitting and distributing? Just because of generosity? Perhaps, if
money does not came from the pockets of generous publishers themselves
or some philanthropist, there is some lesson of use for other
publishers with similar interests. Another way for publication may be
via the funding of universities. It is logical that if universities
are interested in their staff generating knowledge (as they do), and
not only teaching, that knowledge needs to be made available. The
payment, for the publishing work, thus, is paid by the alumni or the
state, according to the major funding the university receives...

2010/10/21, vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu <vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu>:
>>>The idea is that one should be able to read all publications of
>>>nomenclatural acts without any special apparatus
> Isn't that a bit dated nowadays? It's now far easier to access electronic
> material than printed material.
>>>Besides, the current (4th) edition of the ICZN is from 1999, does not
>>>predate the Internet,
> Granted, but it's essentially an update of a code that is significantly
> older; the Phylocode is a totally new thing.
> (And even in 1999, digital media were a lot less dominant than now. It was a
> shortsighted decision even then, but not yet wholly incomprehensible.)
>>>and does not require ink on paper;
> Yeah, but it still requires a physical medium, which is pointless.
>>>Why is that? :-)
> Several reasons, but primarily because I think as we find more and more
> cases of reticulate evolution (hybrid speciation, etc.) a purely
> phylogenetic classification will get messier and messier. It *can* be done,
> but it requires weirdnesses like interlocking taxa -- which IMO are more
> trouble than they're worth. And bacteria are so full of horizontal gene
> transfer I'm not even entirely convinced that phylogeny is even a
> particularly useful starting point, since it's *so* unstable.
> I think taxonomy should follow phylogeny in 99% of cases - at least for
> eukaryotes and less-riddled-with-gene-transfer prokaryotes, but
> taxonomic-units should be kept 'at one remove' from clades -- which are
> actual biological units & therefore messier than desirable in a
> classification, which is ultimately a tool, and thus utility is the most
> important thing. (The other case -- beyond reticulate evolution and such --
> where I think taxonomy should depart from phylogeny is to preserve certain
> names of such wide use that changing them would only introduce confusion --
> moving *Drosophila melanogaster* to *Sophophora* would never be universally
> accepted, so a paraphyletic *Drosophila* is probably the best of the
> available options.)
> Also, I have inherent qualms with *any* fundamental change this late in the
> game, after ~250 years of taxonomy. It's unstable enough as is, and a lot of
> old names would be uprooted for no real reason.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:05:57 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: Koreanosaurus (regarding PDFs instead of forelimbs)
>   > > and the PhyloCode will require ink on paper
>>  Why on Earth?? The ICZN at least has the excuse that it pre-dates the
>>  Internet.
> The idea is that one should be able to read all publications of
> nomenclatural acts without any special apparatus (beyond glasses, I
> suppose). Even microfilm is therefore forbidden. Check out Articles 4.2
> and 4.3: http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art4-5.html
> Besides, the current (4th) edition of the ICZN is from 1999, does not
> predate the Internet, and does not require ink on paper; if Internet
> publication is accompanied by CDs deposited in a couple of public
> institutions, that's fine with the ICZN. Has been done; new names have
> been published in Palaeontologia Electronica this way.
>>  Not that I'm an especial fan of the Phylocode anyway
> Why is that? :-)