Dear Annelid workers,
As the initiator of this discussion, I would like to recap what has
happened and offer some additional points. As Larry Lovell noted, a
"can of worms has been opened. :)
I have counted something like 10 public and private (to me) postings
supporting my position that Tom Parker's posting proposing a new
synonymy does not belong on the Annelid WWW site because it does not
constitute a publication in the sense of the 3rd Edition of the ICZN.
Virtually everyone felt that publication in traditional referred
journals was preferred for papers having a taxonomic content. I have
not seen any postings, apart from Geoff Read, that is in disagreement
with this position. Tom's postings have avoided the issue of the
legality of the ICZN and he does not seem to realize that there are
indeed a set of rules established to bring order to an otherwise
chaotic situtation. Non-reviewed contributions to Newsletters or
Newsgroups do not validate changes to nomenclature.
A major point made in the postings was that papers needed to be
reviewed, and indeed that is the heart of scientific publication. I
have learned the hard way, that when ones papers are not reviewed
carefully prior to publication, they suffer.
So for Zoological Nomenclature, we have a set of rules and they must be
adhered to, Chapter III. Criteria of Publication begins ...
Article 7. Application.--The provisions of this Chapter apply to the
publication not only of a new scientific name, but also to that of any
nomenclatural act or information likely to affect nomenclature.
I think the crux of the matter rests with Article 8. What Constitutes a
Publication..
Section (d). Works produced after 1985--
(ii) For a work produced after 1985 by a method other than
conventional printing to be accepted as published within the meaning of
the Code, it must contain a statement by the author that any new name
or nomenclatural act within it is intended for permanent, public,
scientific record.
Therefore, can Tom Parker (or Geoff Read) claim that the Annelid WWW
site is permanent? I DON'T THINK SO!! We have already experienced a
change of address from the original Cornell Muse server to the Univ. of
Kansas server and two totally different URL addresses. What happens
next when the U.KS site folds or NSF stops supporting Julian Humphries.
The URL address for a posting, even of the same thing on the Cornell
site is different from that on the U.KS site. Therefore one address is
gone and another address replaces it. How can this possibly be
permanence when the address can change so easily?
Nechama pointed out another issue that is considerable concern to me,
namely that access to the WWW is still limited. For example, I
recently saw a listing by the British Museum of polychaete workers in
the UK that provided documentation of their research interests. Out of
about 10 workers, only two listed e-mail addresses and of those there
is no guarantee that WWW access is available. Therefore the aspect of
public access is not necessarily universal. I know for a fact, that
two of our very esteemed emeritus polychaete workers in the U.S. do not
use e-mail.
Geoff said:
>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.
In general content you are correct, but not according to the ICZN and
we must adhere to those rules or there is chaos in the naming of
animals.
> URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/parandal.html
So, what happens when the server changes again? Or, the site disappears
completely as it probably will at some point, to be replaced by
something else? Where is permanence?
Larry Lovell said:
> I look forward to seeing this posting and hope that Tom will take it
>the next step (after the electronic review process) and submit it for
>publication.
Well Tom, I guess the pressure is on now.
Geoff said:
>Will Parandalia now continue its unexpected rise into the pantheon of
>famous polychaetes? Don't go away folks.
If nothing else, I am sure that every specimen collected in a
monitoring program in California will now be checked very carefully.
And, I would personally like to know why those "nerve ganglia" are
pigmented if they are not eyes? Anybody want to do some electron
microscopy?
Bye,
Jim Blake
(jablake at ix.netcom.com)
