Message 2004-10-0197: Re: Article 5

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:05:53 -0500

[Previous by date - Article 5]
[Next by date - Re: Article 5]
[Previous by subject - Re: Article 11.8]
[Next by subject - Re: Article 5]

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:05:53 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: David Marjanovic <>
Subject: Re: Article 5


This is a good suggestion, which I will take up with Kevin.  Article=
21 of the ICZN provides a  model.


>Article 5 establishes what the date of publication is. It fails to=
>regulate, however, how it should be interpreted when a publication=
>just bears a month or even just a year as the date.
>        Often a day is given somewhere in such publications; for=
>example, the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20(4) says "December=
>2000" throughout the issue, but "19 January 2001" on the title page,=
>so it is clear that 19 January 2001 would be the publication date.=
>But what if there's no such indication?
>        I think the preexisting codes have rules that interpret thes=
>as the first, 15th or last day of the month or year. I think we=20
>should introduce some rule along these lines.
>Current full text of Article 5:
>5.1. The publication date is the date on which publication, as=20
>defined in Article 4, took place. More specifically, it is the date=
>on which the publisher or publisher's agent delivered the printed=
>matter to a carrier for distribution to the public. In the absence=
>of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in the=20
>publication itself must be accepted as correct.
>5.2. When separates are issued in advance of the work (periodical or=
>book) that contains them, the date of the work, not of the separate,=
>constitutes the date of publication.

Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130


Feedback to <> is welcome!