David Marjanovic opined: <Only to members and libraries! But I suppose libraries are enough.> I understand this is almost certainly intended to be a narrow interpretation, but there are alternatives: the authors have prepare pdf copies of this and distribute them, if the publisher allows, and they may receive print copies to distribute as well (re-prints) which are typically gratis of the publisher. Because abstract data almost always comes with author attributions, and those in turn almost always with contact information, emailing the authors for a polite request will affirm whether a physical or digital copy can be obtained free of charge. This permits the publication to also be available free of charge, rather than ONLY through subscriptions or access to particularly lucky libraries, or being close to the publisher's office, etc.
If -- if! -- this is the only way you can get the paper, it is not validly published. I repeat:
Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code: [...] 9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work (Art. 8), even if previously deposited in a library or other archive; [...]Note Art. 9.7: reprints distributed by the authors _*DO NOT COUNT!*_ However, this appears to be irrelevant in the present case, because the paper is published according to Art. 8, assuming that Art. 8.1.2 allows its being available only to members and libraries. Also relevant:21.8. Advance distribution of separates and preprints. Before 2000, an author who distributed separates in advance of the specified date of publication of the work in which the material is published thereby advanced the date of publication. The advance issue of separates after 1999 does not do so, whereas preprints, clearly imprinted with their own date of publication, may be published works from the date of their issue (see Glossary: "separate", "preprint")."Preprint":A work published, with its own specified date of publication (imprint date), in advance of its later reissue as part of a collective or cumulative work. Preprints may be published works for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. See separate."Separate":A copy (reprint or offprint) of a work contained in a periodical, book or other larger work, intended for distribution (usually privately by the author(s)) detached from the larger work which contains it but without its own specified date of publication (imprint date). The advance distribution of separates after 1999 does not constitute publication for purposes of zoological nomenclature. See preprint.So, as Art. 9.7 already says: if only reprints are available, the paper isn't published.
I think it is a completely absurd situation that many papers that are extremely hard to get count as validly published while some that are extremely easy to get -- for instance by asking the authors for a pdf -- do not count. But the Code doesn't (currently) care.
I bet there's a library or several that carries the Proceedings. If so, the name *Duriatitan* is probably valid -- assuming that "you have to go to one of a few libraries in England" counts as "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or bypurchase". (Whether it does is impossible to find out without actually asking the Committee; but it's likely, and I don't want to write a Bull. Zool. Nom. article right now.) So, does somebody here know if there's such a library?
If there isn't, the question is whether "you have to become a member of the society" counts as "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or bypurchase". And if it doesn't, *Duriatitan* is not validly published, even though everybody and their blasted brother can read the everloving paper.
And at the same time, peer review is not required! It's all so absurd!And as usual the Code complicates the question further by not explaining what "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or bypurchase" even means!