[Previous by date - Re: Article 5]
[Next by date - Re: Article 5]
[Previous by subject - Re: Article 5]
[Next by subject - Re: Article 5]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:35:19 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Article 5
> 1. If this is held true, the publication _Palaeontologica Electron= ica_ > cannot be held to have a published date, as there is not date the "= printed > matter" was delivered to an receptacle. Under the PhyloCode, PE does not count as published _anyway_, because= it's=20 not in ink on paper. Article 4 http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art4-5.= html=20 makes this clear several times. > Perhaps a clause of "If two or more conflicting dates cited for > publication of an article or other publication are present, that da= te > which is most recent is held to be the valid date of publication, u= nless > otherwise stated." Good idea. > 3. _Naturwissenschaften_ publishes taxonomy digitally ahead of the= print > release, and Springer-Verlag has made a point of noting that the di= gital > release is the VALID one for such issues, and that the rpint issue = is > merely the conventional release form of the publication. Valid for the ICZN, but not for Art. 4 of the PhyloCode.=20