[Previous by date - Re: Article 5]
[Next by date - Re: Death of the PhyloCode?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Article 5]
[Next by subject - Re: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:22:09 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Article 5
> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:35:19 +0100 > From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > > > 1. If this is held true, the publication _Palaeontologica Electr= onica_ > > cannot be held to have a published date, as there is not date the= "printed > > matter" was delivered to an receptacle. >=20 > Under the PhyloCode, PE does not count as published _anyway_, > because it's not in ink on paper. Article 4 > http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art4-5.html makes this clear several > times. I vote that this is a bug. If this has been discussed before, will someone please summarise the arguments that led to this stance? _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________= ___ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> http://www.miketaylor.org= .uk )_v__/\ "The government saved a dying planet where popular icons =09 failed" -- Sting, "Jeremiah Blues" -- Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio =09http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/