[Previous by date - Death of the PhyloCode?]
[Next by date - Re: Article 5]
[Previous by subject - Article 11.8]
[Next by subject - Articles 19 & 20, Table 1, Appendix A]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:13:46 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Article 5
Article 5 establishes what the date of publication is. It fails to re=
gulate,=20
however, how it should be interpreted when a publication just bears a=
month=20
or even just a year as the date.
Often a day is given somewhere in such publications; for exam=
ple,=20
the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20(4) says "December 2000" thr=
oughout=20
the issue, but "19 January 2001" on the title page, so it is clear th=
at 19=20
January 2001 would be the publication date. But what if there's no su=
ch=20
indication?
I think the preexisting codes have rules that interpret these=
as the=20
first, 15th or last day of the month or year. I think we should intro=
duce=20
some rule along these lines.
Current full text of Article 5:
>>
5.1. The publication date is the date on which publication, as define=
d in=20
Article 4, took place. More specifically, it is the date on which the=
=20
publisher or publisher's agent delivered the printed matter to a carr=
ier for=20
distribution to the public. In the absence of proof establishing some=
other=20
date, the one appearing in the publication itself must be accepted as=
=20
correct.
5.2. When separates are issued in advance of the work (periodical or =
book)=20
that contains them, the date of the work, not of the separate, consti=
tutes=20
the date of publication.
<<=20