From the page you link to: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art29

It follows that theses published online, with an ISSN number, on or after January 1 2012, are considered valid publications. Earlier publications, or those without ISSN numbers are not.

For art. 29.1 of International Code of Nomenclature:

"Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN)."

i.e. online-publications are valid only on or after o1/01/2012 and publications must have a ISSN- or a ISBN-code.

The species are valid as long as they are published whether it is a printed version or online, the more contemporary researchers are leaning towards online publications

Please International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php.

In general, a thesis is not considered a formal publication, thus the new species described there should not be considered valid. A formal publication should meet some standards, for example, having a registered number: namely ISSN for serial pubublications and an ISBN for books.

The Melbourne Code recognizes only certain types of publications to be effective (Art. 29-31). Effective publication depends not only on the media used for publication but even on the distribution of the printed material. Usually thesis are not published and distributed "at least to scientific institutions". If not, I don't think these species can be considered effectively published.

Dear Felix, this is what the code states in regard to your question:

30.8. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of education for the purpose of obtaining a degree does not constitute effective publication unless the work includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or publisher.

Note 4. The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effectively published.

I wonder if this is clear enough, actually...

Cheers, Darién

For a name to be validly published in a thesis the intention to do so must be clearly stated by the author or has to have ISSN/ISBN. Other than that any publication anywhere is valid if it complies with the requirements of the code, there is no specific list of journal or pages where species can be published.

Felix, you have to check if the authors of the theses stated clearly they want to validly publish the new sepcies.

There is no formal list of journals where the new species needs to be validly published. According to the ICN it must be published effectively, that means more than one copy being available to public and it is allowed to describe the new taxon in the Msc or PhD thesis, however it must be stated by the author of the publication (and no ISSN/ISBN numbers are needed). The ISSN/ISBN are requaired in case of an electronic journal/book (since 1 Jan 2012, Melbourne Code).

Thanks for all the responses. In most cases I'm convinced that theses are not disseminated widely and therefore are not "effective". But how about inter-university lending and e-repositories? here in India new government policy is that all theses should have an electronic version that should be accessible to the inter-university consortia, and that would be somewhere in between effective and non-effective.

While I believe PhD theses are generally of high quality (at least subjected to examiner's peer-review), papers published in a number of journals with ISSNs are not subjected to any sort of peer review. I'm sure like me most of the members here are getting spams from publishers of International Journal of ....(whatever) with ISSN, few journals clearly stating "acceptance letter will be dispatched after receiving payment in full"! How could IAPT accepts names published in those sub-standard commercial publications all because they have ISSN? Very strange!

There is no requirement at all for peer review in the Code. Indeed, peer review does not guarantee the quality of species descriptions. There are plenty of names out there which are validly published in 'peer reviewed' publications that are nonsensical. Valid and effective publication is a nomenclatural matter, and may not reflect any real biological relationships. You just have to know your group of organisms and reachyour own conclusions about that!

If there is no peer review, how can we make sure that the new species is indeed new? For example, I name blue pea as Bunga telang, but unless reviewer points that this is already named and described by Linnaeus as Clitoria ternatea, the whole naming is critically flawed.

It is a good idea to remember that the ICN for algae, fungi and plants is just a set of rules covering naming of the organisms within its remit. So, if the rules are complied with, then the names exist and are (or at least should be) attached to some form of type material. Whether or not these names have any phylogenetic or biological meaning is actually irrelevant as far as the code goes. It is then up to each individual to decide if they wish to apply the name. If another individual knows that the name really applies to a taxon that already has been described, then the principal of priority is invoked, and a formal synonymisation can take place. Peer review can be very misleading, especially when the 'peers' that are asked to review an article may not actually know very much about the subject at all (editors struggle these days to find people who will review papers, and may go to willing individuals who are really only on the periphery of the subject). So, you must make a judgement when using a name as to whether or not it serves the purpose for which it was intended, and to the competency and integrity of the author(s) of the name. There are plenty of names published in non-peer reviewed books that have stood the test of time and scientific scrutiny. There are also plenty of names published in 'peer reviewed' journals that, simply put, are nonsense.

I would like to add that as an ethnomycologist who recently had a fungi named in my honor, the existing list of known species of Psilocybe now are being changed dramatically due to DNA identification. Many species already have so many synonyms because various mycologists the world over discovered and named a species they believed to be a new species and then later it was discovered that some had as many as twelve people all give the same mushroom a different name. And now with DNA, many species of fungi are being replaced again into other genera from which they once thought they belonged to. Psilocybe cubensis was first reported from Cuba in 1904 by Earle. Two years later it was discovered in Tonkin, North Vietnam (Hanoi) as Naematoloma cyanescens. In America, it was named Stropharia caerulescens Murrill around 1920s or so, then again renamed as Stropharia cubensis Sing. Then later as Psilocybe cubensis [Earle] Sing. but had even more synonyms from around the world, most in the early 1900s to the 1950s. There are many botanical journals for naming new species. Journal of Economic Botany is one. Plant Pathology is another. Journal of Ethnobotany and Journal of Entheobotany, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, although the latter is usually for plants with medicinal qualities. Submit a paper, it gets peer reviewed and then later if accepted gets published. A few of my papers that were over 100 pages or more took from 1-3 years to get published after review due to waiting time and to fix revisions or remove redundant research already noted by others. I have one publication: Ethnomycological Journals: Scared Mushroom Studies vol.. IX:1-201. Three articles, one book review and 245 color photographs, and it is currently only available as a free download book published by maps.org and the copyright is Rick Doblin (MAPS.org); John W. Allen, and Dr. Prakitsin Sihanonth. Co authors include, Gianluca Toro of Italia, Jochen Gartz of the University of Leipzig, Germany and Dr. Tjakko Stijve (retired from Nestec, Suisse. It is in the Free Book Section of the Maps site under Resources: Free Books.

John W. Allen

Dear Felix, in a thesis or dissertation the name of new species described should not be used. It should only be refer to as the genus with sp., for example Steinernema sp. Once the species new species description published from the thesis or dissertation the name is valid.

As far as the effective publication of theses and dissertations is concerned, I would like to quote from the Preface to the Vienna Code, written by McNeill and Turland: ... no independent non-serial publication stated to be a thesis submitted for a higher degree on or after 1 January 1953 would be considered an effectively published work without a statement to that effect or other internal evidence. The Editorial Committee was instructed to provide examples of internal evidence that would best reflect current practice. The new Art. 30 Note 2 refers to the presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed version as such internal evidence.