DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 80 2009-03-04 09:03:53 Art.8.5 and 8.6 should be deleted and replaced by a statement that all nomenclaturally relevant publications must be printed on paper in a minimum of 100 copies. Electronical publications should not be accepted, no matter which format or version. - Hans Malicky, Austria.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-11-05 12:44:14 A new Article 8.8 should be inserted. "Art. 8.8. Status of lost works. If a presumably published work is lost and not a single copy exists any more, the work is deemed not to have been published." This is necessary to clarify cases where nomenclatural information is exclusively based on secondary sources, and important information cannot be verified. Example: Several sources in the mid-1800s cited a publication as "Calcara, P. 1843. Descrizione di alcune nuove specie di conchiglie della Sicilia.", but intensive research did not yield a positive result, the work has never been found again (Riedel 1973). Sherborn's Index Animalium (1922) cited some names from secondary sources and confirmed not to have seen the work. It is possible that it was either a newspaper article or a handwritten or typewritten manuscript. The work must be considered as lost and as such, unpublished.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2011-02-11 17:38:21 Art. 8.1.3 The number of 50 printed copies (to be inserted as mandatory) seems to have been gained acceptance in the Taxacom and [iczn-list] communities in the past years. This should be effective for post-2000 works. For previously published works it is more difficult to give a restriction, because actually some works did have low copy numbers. I would perhaps not touch these, since the zoological community has been able to cope with these.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-11-13 07:17:05 Art. 8.1.2 The term "obtainable" is not defined in the Glossary and has been the subject of debate (example in the thread "Thesis and new species" at [Taxacom], Nov 2013). Various possible solutions to improve the unclear regulation: 1 - replace "obtainable" by "obtainable (or obtainable on loan from a public library)" 2 - define the term in the Glossary to include "obtainable on loan" Questions arise repeatedly whether or not names established in Ph. D. theses are valid new taxa. The answer is always, it depends. If the thesis was only printed on demand, then it is not published work. If the thesis was printed in some 50 copies to be donated to a public library, which is or was an option for example in some German and Dutch universities, then these theses were obtainable on loan and they are published work. These copies were not sold on the market and the question needs to be addressed whether they fall under the term "obtainable". Thomas Pape's proposal was to include "obtainable on loan" under this term. I agree with this view. The idea behind the Article is not that people should personally possess something, but that people should have access to information.
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2014-12-23 19:49:45
Art. 8.1.1
"permanent scientific record" has been the topic of a discussion in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Dec 2014. The term "record" can have two meanings in English:
1) A thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, especially an account kept in writing or some other permanent form [...]
2) The sum of the past achievements or performance of a person, organization, or thing [...]
The French text ("référence") restricts the meaning to the first definition. The English text should be aligned with the French text.,0 AFasbender 2016-05-19 17:10:59 Based on personal experience and discussions with other taxonomists, even with the addition of "obtainable (or obtainable on loan from a public library)" to Article 8.1.2 there is still ambiguity as the the status of theses and dissertations as published works. One of the chief issues is the use of the phrase "numerous copies;" how many copies are quantified as "numerous?" FranciscoWelterSchultes has mentioned 50 copies below, but there are a number of dissertations/theses from which nomenclatural acts are widely recognized which did not receive such widespread production in their initial printing. Basically: if only limited copies were printed and deposited in a university library but were available by inter-library loan (not as facsimile copies) would the thesis/dissertation be considered a "published work"? Even if 50 copies were printed, how can the production of "numerous" copies be proven? Another issue is with the use of the phrase "obtainable on loan from a public library," as loan policies change over time, especially for "historic" materials or original editions. These changes in policy are often difficult or impossible to track. For example, an original edition of a thesis printed in the 1950s and deposited in a university library may have been available for inter-library loan or direct borrowing in the 1950s and 1960s, then disseminated by photocopy from the 1970s through the early 2000s, at which point it was digitized and uploaded the university's publicly accessible thesis database from which it is currently obtainable. Would this be considered a "published work?"