[Previous by date - Re: Registration]
[Next by date - Re: Registration]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Recent modifications of the Code?]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: codes]
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: List PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Registration
Forwarded ... --- "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote: > Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: Registration > To: dinosaur@usc.edu > CC: david.marjanovic@gmx.at > > David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote: > > <Why so aggressive/frustrated this time? Or am I misinterpreting your > tone?> > > No. I want to get to the core of what I think is either too lax of a > system or too easy a one to play with, and to point out reasons why the > current recommendations and "registration" need to be tighter, more > controlled. There is no "frustration" involved, even if the intent is > aggressive as far as it goes to get my points across. > > <It isn't automated. If you coin a name and want it to be valid, you > have > to visit the registration database (available online, of course) and > submit it. The webmaster will register it as soon as you notify him/her > of > publication.> > > And what qualifies as publication? David stated below that _some_ > dissertations _could_ be, which is ridiculous: dissertations on their > face > have NEVER been treated as a valid source of nomenclature, no MATTER the > number of institutionally available copies there were, or how many > people > had a copy of it. This is usually why authors of dissertations tend to > _publish_ their work after the thesis/dissertation has been accepted and > they attain their degree; some publish work from it PRIOR to acceptance, > but that is a moot issue. > > 4.2. Publication, under this code, is defined as distribution of text > (but > not sound), with or without images, in a peer-reviewed book or > periodical. > To qualify as published, works must consist of numerous (at least 50 > copies), simultaneously obtainable, identical, durable, and unalterable > copies, some of which are distributed to major institutional libraries > in > the field so that the work is generally accessible as a permanent public > record to the scientific community, be it through sale or exchange or > gift, and subject to the restrictions and qualifications in the present > article. > > <No more nomina nuda.> > > Actually, if it were to meet the requirements of publication, the name > can still be considered as published in agreement to the code. Does this > name get "forgotten" until the description/definition exists? Or someone > actually assigns it a number? It's that "someone" that worries me. > > <Hardly, because the qualifications for validity are so simple. Note > that > before actually submitting the name, the author is most likely going to > search the database for a homonym (identical name) or synonym (identical > definition).> > > Possible, doesn't mean s/he will. Are we including all invertebrates > to > avoid *Syntarsus* and *Rahova* conflicts again? What plants will go in, > and who will rename *Gastonia,* the tooth, preoccupied by the plant? > > <A few dissertations _can_ be -- simply if they meet the criteria of > publication, such as public availability in enough copies. We've had > that > discussion. By extrapolation, I don't believe it's regulated what a > "casual" magazine might be.> > > "4.2. Publication, under this code, is defined as distribution of text > (but not sound), with or without images, in a peer-reviewed book or > periodical. To qualify as published, works must consist of numerous > (at > least 50 copies), simultaneously obtainable, identical, durable, and > unalterable copies, some of which are distributed to major > institutional > libraries in the field so that the work is generally accessible as a > permanent public record to the scientific community, be it through > sale > or exchange or gift, and subject to the restrictions and > qualifications > in the present article." > > ... and ... > > "Note 4.2.2. Approval of a work by a thesis or dissertation committee > does > not constitute peer review." > > ... show that NO dissertation/thesis is valid. > > <- Under the ICZN, you _don't need_ any statement of intent. > *Ricardoestesia* and *Richardoestesia* are two different names under > the > ICZN (even though they just so happen to be objective synonyms). > Likewise, > each and every misspelling in a published (according to the Code) work > is > a new scientific name.> > > Fortunately, this is also how the ICZN treats different names, since > it > was possible for a name to be valid if it disagreed by only ONE letter > with another name, where before this was more vague and required > arbitration or renaming. > > <- Under the ICZN, it's enough to publish a name to make it valid. It's > a > nomen nudum in that case, but still. Under the PhyloCode a name cannot > become validly published if it isn't already registered!> > > It can't be a nomen nudum unless it's published. If it's published > with > intent, under the code, it's not a nomen nudum. Imagine how this works > out: Mike Keesey publishes his description of a clade system (see > http://dino.lm.com/) in a periodiocal (note, publication criteria > doesn't > require peer-review, it says "_or_ periodical" [of which _Prehistoric > Times_ is one]) as a description, using the names *Alpha,* *Beta,* etc. > These, because they show NO intent to name new species but simply form > species/genus and clade groups by explicit use, even offer definitions, > become absolute valid names. This WON'T work under the Phylocode due to > the following (restated): > > <"7.2. In order to be established, a name of a taxon must: (a) be > published as provided for by Article 4; (b) be adopted by the > author(s), > not merely proposed for the sake of argument or on the condition that > the > group concerned will be accepted in the future; (c) comply with the > provisions of Articles 7 and 9-11; (d) be registered as provided for > in > Article 8, and the registration number be cited in the protologue; and > (e) comply with the provisions of Article 17."> > > This note does in fact require a statement of intent, otherwise how > does > one differentiate something written "for the sake of argument" versus > anything else that would then not qualify 7.2.b? > > <In other words, it is _impossible_ to create a nomen nudum under the > PhyloCode. You simply can't make a name that doesn't have _at least a > definition_.> > > Let's go back a few steps. It is NOT possible to publish a name, and > THEN register it, as I understand it from Article 7. It must be > registered > PRIOR to publication. Now, some magazines have embargoes, and while this > doesn't prevent them from dispersing info to newspapers for > dissemination > _on time_, it does involve an interesting connundrum: I would have to > REGISTER my name prior to publication, THEN verify to the database that > it > exists, to get the registration number, THEN get that published IN THE > PROTOLOGUE, which has to be published with the name to make it valid. > Correct? Say that I manage to get this registration number back in time > to > get it into the protologue prior to publication, but the editorial > process > has closed, and it is no longer possible for me to make emmendations or > add a corrigendum to my paper. What do I do now? > > <It also works on lots of names that the current codes do cover. That's > called "conversion of preexisting names".> > > I DID mention this, to my credit, in the sense of "names the ICBN/ICZN > does not cover." > > <That's an advantage of the former over the latter, and that's my > point.> > > Except that the name *Avgodectes* has, also, applied to what PhyloCode > considered criteria of publication (it was in a periodical, ya know), > shows an intent to name species, make itself available for the permanent > record, and a nearly complete "protologue" either in Peters' article, or > in Wang and Zhou which Peters referenced for the sake of > illustration/photo and further description. Hey, it saves paper time! > The > name is now available to be a converted clade name. > > <Yes -- that wasn't the topic at all.> > > Actually, that was part of the whole topic: this thread isn't about > JUST > the PhyloCode and registration, it involves as I was hoping to discuss > registration and consideration of validity, coming back to *Avgodectes* > to > make it's points. > > <"8.2. At the submitter's request, a name or definition that he or she > proposed can be changed or removed from the registration database if > it > is not yet published."> > > Ah, but it WAS published. It was just published in ERROR. As one may > note, some names get noticed for error after publication, a condition we > may recall with regards to *Agnostiphys*/*Agnosphytis*. This is a > critical > point that the PhyloCode has one hand DOWN from what the ICZN can do: a > first revisor, preferrably the original authors, may indicate in press > which name was the intended name. At this point, BOTH names should be > entered as published, a database of erroneously published names, > essentially, or lapsus calami, but only ONE gets a registration number > as > nomen validum. Simple as that. BUT that's a lot more work, isn't it? > > <"8.3. ..."> > > References definitions, not the name. > > <I can't quite imagine an editor dropping a word, however.> > > It can happen by accident. A word, a letter, etc. > > <Article 8.2 gives you lots of time to correct everything.> > > It can't slow the flow of editorial or publication time, and the > period > in which you have to correct your draft or plate before the process is > closed so that it may go to press. The PhyloCode spends more time > discussing rules for definitions and registration than it does > referencing > publication criteria and the ability to correct this ... except for the > definition and pre-publication correctiveness, not post-publication > corrections, etc. It's as if the registration act is the end-all of > nomenclature. > > <Er... a name without a definition can't be valid under the PhyloCode. > If > you want to publish a name without a definition, and want people to use > it, you'll have to use the appropriate preexisting code -- as you'll > have > to do for species as long as the rules for species won't be written.> > > It is available as a name to be made into a converted clade name, so > sure it is. All one has to do is supply a definition ANYWHERE and get > that > to the PhyloCode FIRST, before anyone beats you to the punch. > > <Yes, and? I don't quite understand what your point is.> > > It is unneccessary to supercede the ICZN for recommendations regarding > availability of nomenclature of names it covers, when PhyloCode will > reject them for not having a definition, or that the registration > process > really is about a guy punching in a few numbers to the tune of a running > clock. Or that validity of the name depends on when the registrar can > see > the name, at no other time, and made available by date=n. I made a point > contradicting an automated process, and this would seem refuted by the > admission of a person who has to be told of a publication date and time. > Someone has to check to make sure that publication is REAL. NO one can > go > back and fix the errors in publication, or determine which name was the > intended proper name, because ... > > "14.3. When two or more synonyms have the same publication date (Art. > 5), > the one that was registered first (and therefore has the lowest > registration number) takes precedence." > > ... it has already been decided. Note further: > > "18.1. The original spelling of a name established under this code is > the > correct spelling and should be retained in subsequent publications, > except for the correction of typographical errors (see Art. 18.5). The > original spelling is the one that is used in the protologue at the > time > of establishment and that is registered (see Art. 8)." > > ... that name would be under 14.3. But then, the following ... > > "18.3. If the registered spelling of a name disagrees with the spelling > in > the protologue, the author should determine which is correct. If the > author determines that the registered spelling is incorrect, it is to > be > corrected in the registration database and a note added stating that > the > change was made. If the protologue is incorrect, the registration > database is to be annotated to alert users that this is the case. > > "18.4. If the registered spelling of a name disagrees with the spelling > in > the protologue or the name is spelled more than one way in the > protologue, and the author is no longer alive or is otherwise unable > to > determine which spelling is correct, the following guidelines are to > be > used: If it is clear that all but one of the spellings are > typographical > errors, the remaining one is treated as correct. If it is not clear > which > spellings are typographical errors, the one that is most consistent > with > Recommendation 17B is treated as correct. If it is not clear which > spellings are typographical errors, and it is not clear that one is > more > > consistent with Recommendation 17B than the others, the one > immediately > associated with the designation "new clade name," "converted clade > name," > etc. is treated as correct. If the registered spelling is determined > to > be incorrect, it is to be changed in the registration database and a > note > added stating that the change was made. If the protologue is > incorrect, > the registration database is to be annotated to alert users that this > is > the case. Such decisions regarding the correct spelling of a name may > be > made by any person but must be published (Art. 4) before the > registration > database is corrected or annotated." > > ... then how is the change to be made? The latter article sub-article > notes that this can happen, but not HOW. "It is to be made" sounds yet > like more red-tape, and less of an automated system. Even further, while > it involves the author, the author is NOT allowed to change it, but the > first use of the name is to be accepted, or that which is attached to > the > key phrase "new clade name" or etc.. NO room for error. This last > subarticle (18.4) would seem to be clarifying, yet it disagrees with > previous articles (14.3, 18.1, 18.3) in what action can be taken. > Instead, > this needs correction and/or clarification. An appeals system, even, and > not an appeal to the registrar. It's not as if the author will have > direct > access to the registry to make the change himself, but someone else is > at > the helm. > > How many points have I made as yet? > > 1) the system is not automated. > > 2) there IS red-tape involved in doing something as fundamental as > choosing the name and getting it recognized. > > 3) the registry has more kinks in it than it SHOULD, and thus > complicates the system, not smooths it. > > 4) *Avgodectes* is still a valid name until a definition is coined and > accepted. Otherwise, PhyloCode is not valid as yet, thus has no say. > > Cheers, > > ===== > Jaime A. Headden > > Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making > leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We > should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us > rather than zoom by it. > > "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ===== Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail