Larry Lovell wrote:
> ... the taxonomy was not "pseudo", it is the idea that this
> medium represents a "pseudo-publication" that Jim was correct about.
Tom should have also used a pseudonym perhaps? Now there's an idea! (I'm
just reading a truly awful book about a group of scientists who conspire
to become famous as one pseudonymous entity.)
I'm prepared to bet that a court of law would decide the web is a
publication medium and a web article is a publication. Back in the paper
print world it can also be as appropriately cited by biologists as any
other hitherto unconventional source of information (Haven't biologists
been comfortable with using and citing electronically intangible things
like software for many years?) Nevertheless I would be surprised if
anyone is eager to cite this particular page.
The real question at issue is whether in the view of other taxonomists
the page is a publication for the limited purposes of nomenclatural
decision making. Immediately after I had put it online for Tom to check
Jim ran across it and enquired about it on the list, suggesting it
"infringes on the Rules." If so then no-one need worry about it further,
but, as I previously said, we have rapidly clarified a somewhat
hypothetical problem with a disclaimer. The page cannot be misconstrued
in the future as a publication as the ICZN understands such.
> "paper" was, I'm sure, put on annelida to elicit comments ...
Tom's article was not put on Annelida list but published (oops, sorry
about that word again, - make that 'made public') at:
URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/parandal.html
> hope that Tom will take it the next step (after the electronic review process)
> and submit it for publication.
Yes indeed, I hope so too.
Will Parandalia now continue its unexpected rise into the pantheon of
famous polychaetes? Don't go away folks.
--
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/g-read.html
