Message 2004-10-0199: Re: Article 5

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:35:19 +0100

[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 <>
Subject: Re: Article 5

>  1. If this is held true, the publication _Palaeontologica Electron=
> cannot be held to have a published date, as there is not date the "=
> matter" was delivered to an receptacle.

Under the PhyloCode, PE does not count as published _anyway_, because=
not in ink on paper. Article 4
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=
> which is most recent is held to be the valid date of publication, u=
> otherwise stated."

Good idea.

>  3. _Naturwissenschaften_ publishes taxonomy digitally ahead of the=
> release, and Springer-Verlag has made a point of noting that the di=
> release is the VALID one for such issues, and that the rpint issue =
> merely the conventional release form of the publication.

Valid for the ICZN, but not for Art. 4 of the PhyloCode.=20


Feedback to <> is welcome!