DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-11-06 06:27:41 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-11-06 09:44:30 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-04-01 09:59:56 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 As it stands now, the whole publication would be considered as unpublished if some handwriting was contained (Petit 2008). Perhaps: Handwritten corrections printed in available works produced by printing method on paper are available.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-07-01 10:15:01 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-11-05 12:07:49 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].
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-11-05 12:15:21 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).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-11-05 12:39:09 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-30 11:26:34 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 Férussac 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.