Dear Oliver,

There is a lot of things in ICZN that have different interpretations. If you do not know how to interpret something, the best is to ask somebody from I. Comittee for ZN (ICZN), for example Dough Yanega.

BE careful, article 8 is different now because it was changed in 2012:

Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication

8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:

8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,

8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and

8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that

assures

8.1.3.1. numerous identical and durable copies (see Article 8.4), or

8.1.3.2. widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout.

Example: PDF/A (Portable Document Format Archive), described by ISO Standard 19005-1:2005, is a file format that allows

content and layout to be preserved unchanged

I think that this example will help you.

You can download it from: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/zt03450p007.pdf

I hope I helped you,

Best regards,

Josip

Dear Josip,

thank you for your answer. The interpretation of words/terms not listed in the glossary such as "obtainable" or "durable copies" coming from the Commission or at least given by some Commissioners is somewhat awkward.

In their opinion "obtainable" (as used in Art. 8.1.2.) means "it physically exists" (as used in Art. 8.1.3) and "durable copies" are all copies printed on paper (I don't want to discuss pdfs or CD-Roms here) because the works of concern are prior on paper and prior to 2012. However, I am well aware of the amendment in 2012, but the terms I am questioning did not change.

I find it hard to believe that if one takes the words of the Code for granted to evaluate works and to decide wheather or not a name is available or even published (for the purpose of zoological nomenclature) and strictly applies it to works, the Commission comes up and says: No, that's not what we have meant and the name is perfectly fine".

Article 8 does not leave much space for interpretation, however, the Commission then uses the terms mentioned above beyond common sense, although, the real meaning becomes clear from the Introduction to the Code which is not mandatory.

So, I wanted to ask what the scienitific community thinks about the meaning of the words/terms mentioned above.

Best regards,

Wulf

Hi Wulf,

this very issue has been the crux ofa lot of debate in recent years. Particularly as we both know in the herpetoloical community. That said.

Obtainable seems to be one of debate. As you point out it could mean "it exists" but so does the side of a milk carton. So I think and it would seem you do too, this is unsatisfactory. It more means that there is evidence through usually acceptable means that the publication has been presented as published in a way that is easily checkable,and public. That isit has been indexed by libraries etc. Which would mean that ISSN or ISBN numbers should be real and checkout etc.

As for "durable copies" that is basically saying they must all be identical and must all be reasonably stable. So if I get it in five different places they should all look the same in terms of text figures and formating.

Hope I gave you an answer, cheers, Scott

Hi Scott,

yes, these terms have been subject to a lot of discussions and the outcome of such - at least within the ICZN listserver group - was most often a very liberal understanding, hence, almost everything ever published on paper may seem to comply with the Code. This of course, renders article 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 to uselessness. Same may be said about the requirement of art. 8.1.1 "provide a public and permanent scientific record".

That said, people who are not that familiar with the details and pitfalls of the Code may use these articles as they read and understand them to argue against a name. However, the Commission then pops up with their understanding of the terms (which is sent on request and therefore is not publically accessable) and says it's all perfect as the paper exists and was published on paper. This is annoying when arguing e.g. against nomenclatural and taxonomic vandalism as we know cases in herpetology.

I am for strict application of the Code in any case and this would prevent several names in some publications from beeing published in accordance with the Code.

Cheers,

Wulf

Dear colleagues,

I think we should send all our notes, comments, proposals, suggestions and complaints to the International Commission since the new Code is expected to be published in 2018 and I think now is the time of consensus, public discussion.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-new-zoo-1.14200

http://www.nature.com/news/nomenclature-chaos-averted-with-financial-bailout-1.14191

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=136697&CultureCode=en

http://news.nus.edu.sg/highlights/7059-nus-to-host-secretariat-of-zoological-naming-authority

We could make a topic here (Q&A) to discuss some changes and to see the opinion of various taxonomists - for Porifera, Nematoda, Cnidaria, Arthropoda, Vertebrata... and to make argumentative discussion with examples and then make some document with our proposals and changes and send it to ICZN, I think it would be great since there are lot of taxonomists on Researchgate and our voice is valuable, even more when you take into account that in 2014 it is much more easy to make internet discussion since the computer and internet is available to great number of people, much more than before 1999.

What do you think,

Sincerely

Josip

Dear Josip,

yes, it would be a good idea to collect opinions and change requests for the upcoming 5th edition of the Code. But I suggest not to make them here but at the ICZN wiki (http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki) which was installed to present and discuss requested or desired changes within the future Code.

Cheers,

Wulf