Source: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2017-January/130791.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-25 16:27:57
Document Index: 584663100

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art 21', 'Art 21', 'Art. 8']

Fri Jan 13 19:13:24 CST 2017
Instead: If you are in doubt whether an act is available or not, consider it available,
a) authors publish nomenclatural acts with the intention to make them available, not unavailable
b) if a part of the community considers an act available, it will be used, cited, propagated anyway
As a default, consider an act available. Only consider it unavailable when it is clearly unavailable. (Clearly would mean: no date of publication)
What gain do we have if we consider published acts (with all associated science) to be unavailable if they could be considered available? Does anybody think that an author (or any journal for that matter) will re-publish a paper because the original did not contain month and day of publication? This will never happen.
If a type depository is mentioned, but not the location of the depository (as required by the Code), does it make sense and does it help nomenclatural stability to consider the name unavailable?
I plead for common sense.
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 4:37 PM
To: 'John Noyes' <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>; 'Hinrich Kaiser' <chalcopis at yahoo.com>; 'Scott Thomson' <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
In other words, if you see a problem in the Code, ignore it!
On Sat, 14/1/17, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
To: "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>, "'Hinrich Kaiser'" <chalcopis at yahoo.com>, "'Scott Thomson'" <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
Received: Saturday, 14 January, 2017, 12:33 PM
that this ambiguity needs to be rectified in the next  edition of the Code.  Given that there is ambiguity, I  believe the correct course of action is to interpret the  Code in a way that maximizes nomenclatural stability.  I  would suggest that given the highly pedantic nature of this  specific requirement (Art. 8.5.2), coupled with the dubious  value it offers to the Code and nomenclatural stability in  general, nomenclatural stability is probably maximized by  assuming that the names established within e-only works that  include incompletely specified dates should be regarded as  available until demonstrated otherwise.
Moreover, I think it's helpful to note that  this specific question has been discussed within at least  two ICZN meetings (Singapore and Berlin), and in both cases  the consensus was that incompletely specified dates were  regarded as being within compliance of Art. 8.5.2.  However, I do not believe there was any specific vote on the  matter.  Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, most (all?)  ICZN Commissioners who have commented on this thread  interpret it this way as well (i.e., that an incompletely  specified date fulfills the requirements of Art. 8.5.2, and  is consistent with the glossary definition).
For all of these reasons, I
would strongly advocate that names published in e-only works  wherein the date was incompletely specified should be  regarded as available unless and until the Commission issues  a formal ruling otherwise.
> From: John Noyes [mailto:j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk]  > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:57 AM  > To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org';  'Hinrich Kaiser'; 'Scott Thomson'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Electronic
> "OK,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.  My read  of the "date"
> requirement for
electronic publications does not indicate that it must be  a  > "complete date". My read of  Art 21.3, "Date incompletely specified", is  that  > it a "date" (in the  sense of the code) is still a "date", even if it  is "incompletely  >  specified".  As such, an incompletely specified date  fulfills the requirement  > for a  "date" to be included within electronic works.  Similarly, "Date  > incorrect"
of Art 21.4 implies that an incorrectly stated date is still  a "date" in  > the sense of the  Code, so even if the "date" included in an  electronic work is  > both incomplete and  incorrect, it fulfills the requirement of Art. 8.5.2  > because, by my read at least, both  "incomplete dates" and "incorrect  dates"
> are still "dates"
in the sense of the Code."
> I think that the fact that there is
disagreement about this is really important  > because it has relevance (currently at
least) to the availability of
nomenclatural acts. Judging by e-mails on this topic the  split seems to be  > fairly even which  means that taking this requirement the way we understand  > it about half of us would regard e-pubs  with the year only as the date of  >  publication as available whilst the rest would regard them  as unavailable.
> This will surely have a
bearing on stability and that is why I think it cannot be  > just left alone.
> Department of Life
Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know  about  > chalcidoids and more):
Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years,  1987-2017.