IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Fwd: RE: [Annelida] Arwidsson date

James Blake via annelida%40net.bio.net (by jablake9 from gmail.com)
Tue Apr 20 08:41:39 EST 2010


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Blake <jablake9 from gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
To: Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz>


Sergio and others,

Sergio is wrong. The Code clearly specifies that as Mary pointed out: "*Before
2000*, an author who distributed separates in advance of the specified date
of publication of the work in which the material is published thereby
advanced the date of publication. The advance issue of separates after 1999
does not do so, whereas preprints, clearly imprinted with their own date of
publication, may be published works from the date of their issue (see
Glossary: "separate", "preprint")."

Given this, Arwidisson's preprinted version iin 1090 is the correct date of
publication.  In 1906 there was no Code of Zoological Nomenclature and no
rules regarding a Thesis, Dissertation, or preprints. In fact, at the time,
publication of a Dissertation was often considered the formal publication of
monographic work. Consider Soderstrom's 1920 monograph on spionids as an
example.

Jim

  On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz> wrote:

>  Here is Sergio's early message to me from the weekend. He wishes it to
> be circulated.
>
> Geoff
>
> >>> On 18/04/2010 at 7:27 p.m., Sergio Salazar <savs551216 from hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mary, Geoff and Joao,
>
> Forgive me. I must disagree about using 1906 for the Arwidsson
> monograph. My point is that the year for the publication must be agreed
> upon as 1907.
>
> 1) Is the dissertation a valid publication (for nomenclatural
> purposes)? No. Or at least it was not the same by then. Think about the
> interaction with referees and editor, think about the number of copies
> made simultaneously. This difference was made clear even then, since the
> dissertations had to be submitted for publication. If you have a good
> library, please notice that this apparent duplication was made during
> about the same period by. i.a. Fauvel, and by Pruvot & Racovitza. In
> both cases, the publication retains the same typography and format, but
> since they were concentrated in morphology and anatomy, we have not
> dealt too much with any problem about priority.
>
> 2) Have we been wrong? Not likely. We may have made mistakes or confuse
> ourselves; changing numbers in publication years or pages is a frequent
> problem in listing references. What about the author himself? As Geoff
> has correctly indicated, he used 1907 as the publication date for his
> monograph. Did he forget his own dissertation? Certainly not. He just
> understood that a dissertation was (is) not a publication. I bet most
> papers dealing with maldanids would have included 1907 as the
> publication year. If most people have employed 1907, including the
> Zoological Record, Nomenclator Zoologicus and our much respected Olga
> Hartman’s catalogue, and Kristian Fauchald’s PinkBook, then this
> would be the equivalent for widespread usage. Sorry, I have not had the
> time to check and list the corresponding publications for each usage.
>
> 3) The issue deal with the change of the tetranomen of Arwidsson
> species, or the trinomen of his genera and subfamilies. I insist that
> the taxa established by Arwidsson must be accompanied by 1907, not by
> 1906. If one of the now (too) many websites including list of species
> names have a different year, then it’s their problem (but not the only
> one, indeed), and someone must notify them about it. This change,
> however, would not be enough argument as to revert the publication year
> by using the dissertation instead of the publication.
>
> 4) How could we know about the correct corresponding dates? One means
> is to ask in the editorial office for the journal. They might have a
> record about the date when the volumes were issued. If the records are
> lost or the serial has disappeared, then another option is to ask a
> large library about the accession date. The latter would shed some
> additional light as well, especially if the dissertation had the same
> dissemination than the publication, which I can guarantee did not,
> despite the fact I haven’t seen the records of any library. However,
> as Geoff said before, do we need to pursue this search? I guess not, or
> at least not unless we have some evidence of a similar usage for dates
> 1906 vs 1907 in the publications dealing with maldanids. I would
> anticipate that this will not be the case, but will wait for the
> evidence.
>
> 5) Is this an issue of priority? If so, then, please remember that our
> code indicates that priority might be set aside, especially if a
> widespread usage is shown. First, please take into consideration that
> the ICZN has among its principles, one which is relevant to this point
> (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/):
>
> (4) Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide the
> maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom. Accordingly, the
> Code recognises that the rigid application of the Principle of Priority
> may, in certain cases, upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed
> meaning through the validation of a little-known, or even
> long-forgotten, name. Therefore the rules must enable the Principle of
> Priority to be set aside on occasions when its application would be
> destructive of stability or universality, or would cause confusion. For
> use in such cases the Code contains provisions that modify the automatic
> application of the Principle of Priority, whether it concerns the
> establishment or precedence of names, the fixation of name-bearing
> types, the spelling of a name, or any other matter.
>
> You might think that this refers only to species, but please read
> Article 7 of the code, and you will notice that it refers to
> publications and nomenclatural acts as well.
>
> Then, forgive me for insisting that we must agree on using 1907 instead
> of 1906 for Arwidsson's monograph.
>
> Un abrazo,
>
> Sergio
>
>
>
>
> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
> Atmospheric Research Ltd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
> Resources: http://www.annelida.net
>



-- 
James A. Blake, Ph.D.
Marine & Coastal Center
AECOM Environment, NE Region
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Tel: 508-457-7900; FAX: 5008-457-7595
E-Mail: James.Blake from aecom.com and
jablake9 from gmail.com



-- 
James A. Blake, Ph.D.
Marine & Coastal Center
AECOM Environment, NE Region
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Tel: 508-457-7900; FAX: 5008-457-7595
E-Mail: James.Blake from aecom.com and
jablake9 from gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20100420/3ce40f95/attachment.html


More information about the Annelida mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net