Chapter 4: Criteria of availability

Article 10. Provisions conferring availability. A name or nomenclatural act becomes available only under the following conditions.

10.1. General conditions to be met. A name or nomenclatural act is available, and takes authorship and date, only when it has satisfied the provisions of this Article and, when relevant, of Articles 11 to 20 (for date and author see Articles 21 and 50). A name may be ruled to be available by the Commission [Arts. 78-81] if these conditions are not fully met.

Recommendation 10A. Responsibility of editors and publishers. An editor should ensure that the whole of the description and illustrations relating to a new nominal taxon, and particularly any nomenclatural acts or data necessary to confer availability on its name, are published in the same work and on the same day.

10.2. Availability of infrasubspecific names. An infrasubspecific name is not available [Art. 45.5] from its original publication, unless it was published before 1961 for a "variety" or "form" and is deemed to be available under Art. If an author uses a name, previously published at infrasubspecific rank, in a way which makes it available for a species or subspecies, that author thereby establishes it as a new name and it takes his or her authorship [Art. 45.5.1] (see also Articles 23.3.4 and 50.3.1).

10.3. Availability of names proposed for collective groups and ichnotaxa. A name proposed for a collective group is treated as a genus-group name [Art. 42.2.1]; a name proposed for an ichnotaxon is a family-group name, or genus-group name, or species-group name, according to the way in which it is first established (for names established for ichnotaxa for use at genus-group level, see Article 42.2.1).

10.4. Availability of names for divisions of genera. A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division"; but a name used for an aggregate of species which is denoted by a term such as "superspecies" is not deemed to be a genus-group name [Art. 6.2].

10.5. Availability of names of taxa later but not at first classified as animals. The name (or names) of a taxon, including a taxon based on the work of an organism not at first classified as animal but later so classified, is available from its original publication provided that it satisfies the relevant provisions of this Chapter, provided that it is not excluded from the Code [Arts. 1.3, 3], and provided that it is a potentially valid name under another Code (the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature or the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) relevant to the taxon.

10.6. Effect of invalidity upon availability. A name once available remains so irrespective of its invalidity as a junior synonym, a junior homonym, an unjustified emendation, an unnecessary substitute name, or a suppressed name, unless the Commission has ruled otherwise [Arts. 78.1, 78.2]. (Even if the taxon concerned is no longer classified as animal its name remains available [Art. 2.2]).

10.7. Availability of names not listed in a relevant adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology. No unlisted name within the scope of an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology is available, despite any previous availability [Art. 79.4.3].

10.8. Availability of names and nomenclatural acts in electronic works. New names and nomenclatural acts cannot be made available in electronic works issued before 2012 (Article 8.5.1; see Article 10.9 for other requirements).

10.9. Registration of works. Electronic works must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (Article 78.2.4) for any nomenclatural acts they contain to be available.

10.10. Registration of names. Registration in the Official Register is required for a new scientific name at any rank published in an electronic work (Article 8.5) to be available. Additional requirements for availability of such names are that:

Recommendation 10B. Registration encouraged. Authors are encouraged to include registration numbers from the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature for new names and nomenclatural acts that they introduce in paper-based publications, particularly if there is also an electronic edition.

Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution

FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 10.1.1

This is the wrong place for taxonomists who search information as to which should be the correct date. Under Art. 21.5 I suggested to explain the procedure in detail. Also, the term "interrupted and continued at a later date" seems to suggest that only interrupted texts are meant. A clear ruling should be given that the provision also includes references to plates which were issued separately at later dates. Under Art. 21.5 I have given an example from FĂ©russac 1821 how this Article works in the practice. A reference to Article 21.5 which determines unambiguously the correct date should also be given here.
2012-11-30 11:26:34
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 9 should contain more examples for what does not constitute published work.

"9.10. Typewritten texts as such.

9.11. Carbon-paper copies obtained from typewritten text."

It seems necessary to mention this explicitely in the Code, not all taxonomists seem to interprete the Code in a way that Art. 8.1.3 and 8.4 reject these as allowed forms of printing (taxacom mailing list, Nov 2009).

"9.12. Conventional newspapers which were not primarily published for a scientific audience (unlike The Athenaeum, Isis von Oken and other newspaper-like magazines)."

Newspapers seem to constitute a permanent problem, they are not widely available and their paper quality is generally too low for assuring durable copies (newspapers need to print special issues on better quality for library deposits). We have some newspaper-like scientific magazines (The Athenaeum, Isis von Oken and others), with a primarily scientific audience and which are available in libraries; these should not be excluded by this provision. Their paper quality was better than that of present-day newspapers.
It seems that in some very exceptional cases names of fishes and birds were first published in conventional newspapers AND later recognized by taxonomists. These should only be recognized if the names are used and important. I would recommend to ask the Commission to validate these as scientific publications.
2009-11-05 12:39:09
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 9 should contain more examples for what does not constitute published work.

9.10. Typewritten texts as such.

9.11. Carbon-paper copies obtained from typewritten text.

It seems necessary to mention this explicitely in the Code, not all taxonomists seem to interprete the Code in a way that Art. 8.1.3 and 8.4 reject these as allowed forms of printing (taxacom mailing list, Nov 2009).
2009-11-05 12:15:21
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 9

The ICZN-Wiki should cite the current version of the Code and not a phantasy version.

Current version:

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:

9.1. after 1930 handwriting reproduced in facsimile by any process;

9.2. photographs as such;

9.3. proof sheets;

9.4. microfilms;

9.5. acoustic records as such made by any method;

9.6. labels of specimens;

9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a library or other archive;

9.8. text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web); or

9.9. abstracts of articles, papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar material when issued primarily to participants at meetings, symposia, colloquia or congresses.

Recommendation 9A. Authors to avoid unintentional publication in abstracts. Authors submitting abstracts of conference papers primarily for issue to participants, should ensure that names and acts affecting zoological nomenclature in such works are not liable to unintended publication. They should ensure that volumes of abstracts contain appropriate disclaimers [Art. 8.2].

2009-11-05 12:07:49
FranciscoWelterSchultes   10.4:
The expression "infrasubgeneric name" should be mentioned in this passage, and should also be explained in the glossary, with a reference to 10.4.

This is the expression an outstanding zoologist would look for in the Code, so it would be useful to have it mentioned.
2009-07-01 10:15:01
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 9 is locked, it is technically not possible to deposit comments there (04/2009), so I use this page.

Art. 9.1 needs to be modified.

In some instances names were corrected by hand before print, so that the hand-made corrections were offset printed. These are commonly accepted. The Code should reflect this practice.

As it stands now, the whole publication would be considered as unpublished if some handwriting was contained (Petit 2008).

Handwritten corrections printed in available works produced by printing method on paper are available.
2009-04-01 09:59:56
FranciscoWelterSchultes   Another passage is needed.
"10.1.2. Any nomenclatural act must refer directly to available names. It is not possible to establish valid nomenclatural acts by referring to vernacular or other names not established under the provisions of the Code, or by using them as substitute for available names. For implicite combinations of specific names with generic names see 11.9.3."
I do not find anywhere else in the Code such an explicite statement banning the use of vernacular names in scientific contexts, and I have been looking for it at this location in Art. 10. I know it is implicite that vernacular names cannot interfere in the nomenclatural system based on the Code, but I do not see it anywhere written down. It would be useful, helpful and necessary to have such a statement in the Code.
2008-11-06 09:44:30
FranciscoWelterSchultes   10.7: Delete 10.7.

10.8: Replace 2010 by 2100, delete reference to 10.9.

10.9: Delete 10.9. First a registry system should be established, then it should prove that it actually works, and afterwards, if it works and childhood deseases were removed, it should become part of the rules in the Code. Art. 79 showed us that dreams should better not become part of the Code.

Recommendation 10B: Delete this recommendation. Same reason as above in 10.9.

2008-11-06 06:27:41

Article10 (last edited 2011-12-20 19:42:17 by GaryRosenberg)