tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post6783450253926152586..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: The ICZN and Electronic Publication: Where Did It Go Wrong?Christopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-9360113757376667312013-01-04T00:41:19.195+08:002013-01-04T00:41:19.195+08:00Good article, Christopher. Thanks for giving the i...Good article, Christopher. Thanks for giving the issues - both positive and problematic - some thought and airtime. Ellinor Michelhttp://iczn.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-78910302698149626862012-10-20T06:38:29.156+08:002012-10-20T06:38:29.156+08:00Yes, I agree that there is no such thing as 100% c...Yes, I agree that there is no such thing as 100% certainty, but the percentage we can hope for has now gone down somewhat ...Stephen Thorpenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-27113774445017518722012-10-19T17:59:19.431+08:002012-10-19T17:59:19.431+08:00PDF creation dates aren't directly relevant to...<i>PDF creation dates aren't directly relevant to their publication dates</i><br /><br />Nor are library date-stamps. It's correlatory evidence. No more, no less.<br /><br /><i>whereas we know if something was datestamped by a library that it was indeed published at that stage</i><br /><br />Actually, we don't. Why should we assume that the deposition of a copy with a library post-dates its release to the public? In an <a href="http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/define-published.html" rel="nofollow">earlier post</a> I've discussed the super-rare journal <i>Lansania</i>, some later issues of which we don't really know if they count as 'published' because we don't know if they were ever really distributed. Again, date-stamps prove nothing of themselves, they're just a source of evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-35140420284071493242012-10-19T08:12:51.524+08:002012-10-19T08:12:51.524+08:00Actually, more to the point, PDF creation dates ar...Actually, more to the point, PDF creation dates aren't directly relevant to their publication dates, whereas we know if something was datestamped by a library that it was indeed published at that stage ...Stephen Thorpenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-43479943296296444162012-10-19T05:41:16.078+08:002012-10-19T05:41:16.078+08:00Well, maybe? Problem is that library date stamps w...Well, maybe? Problem is that library date stamps were done by trusted libraries with no reason to fake anything. The date of creation of a PDF might be fakable by an author or rogue editor of a dodgy e-journal ...Stephen Thorpenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-2612606650924692972012-10-10T14:04:31.809+08:002012-10-10T14:04:31.809+08:00Pdfs, at least, have the date of creation containe...Pdfs, at least, have the date of creation contained in the file metadata. You can see it by looking at the 'Properties' tab in the 'File' menu. So for them, checking the date is even easier than it is with paper.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-62549515482561846242012-10-10T12:57:51.915+08:002012-10-10T12:57:51.915+08:00About paper not being 'immutable' either: ...About paper not being 'immutable' either: I think you miss the point. In the "good ol' days" before e-publication, you could check validity of publication (in principle) by visiting some libraries and finding paper copies *date stamped* on receipt by the library. Any further print runs or alternative versions which can't be shown to predate the above copies are irrelevant to nomenclature. Now, we can't really do that with e-publications??Stephen Thorpenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-3434483659968106742012-10-06T17:35:37.336+08:002012-10-06T17:35:37.336+08:00Hmm, I thought I'd responded to this, but it l...Hmm, I thought I'd responded to this, but it looks like I had my comment etherised. Sorry.<br /><br />Anywho, the problem you raise isn't one with ZooBank <i>per se</i>. Registration currently is only compulsory for taxa published electronically from 2012 onwards; for all older and paper-published taxa, it's a purely voluntary process. So if these names don't bring up a result on ZooBank, it's just because nobody has gotten around to entering them there yet. It doesn't affect their availability or anything.<br /><br />Now, you may argue that there should be more of a concerted drive to get such names uploaded, but that's a separate issue. And one that potentially would require funds that ZooBank doesn't currently have access to.<br /><br />(I hasten to add that some people have voluntarily been very proactive in adding older taxa to ZooBank's records. But with probably well over a million names to get through, that's going to take a while.)Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-37752748567852364262012-10-05T11:24:39.579+08:002012-10-05T11:24:39.579+08:00Scrub portions of my last post. I meant to have sa...Scrub portions of my last post. I meant to have said:<br /><br />1. "I noticed this some months ago, but didn't say anything because I assumed I was 'doing it wrong'"<br /><br />2. "But I'm not really so worried about these new names so..I just find it depressing that iconic names like 'Tyrannosaurus' or 'Diplodocus' bring up no results in what is supposed to be an official registry."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-4308670967444262752012-10-05T11:21:33.695+08:002012-10-05T11:21:33.695+08:00Me again (the anonymous poster)
I noticed this so...Me again (the anonymous poster)<br /><br />I noticed this some months ago, but didn't say anything because I assumed I 'doing it wrong'. <br /><br />plosone authors obviously don't make up the LSIDs, so perhaps it's a case that the request the LSIDs from zoobank, but that zoobank haven't entered these in their system - or that the authors of the plosone articles have to do that themselves.<br /><br />But I'm really worried about these new names so..I just find it depressing that iconic names like 'Tyrannosaurus' or 'Diplodocus' bring up no results in what is supposed to be an official registry.<br /><br />Jay<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-41398827074850784282012-10-04T13:38:43.872+08:002012-10-04T13:38:43.872+08:00I just tried searching for a couple of taxa recent...I just tried searching for a couple of taxa recently published in ZooKeys, and also failed to get a result. But these taxa, like the PLoS One examples you mention, have an LSID cited in the paper. If they're not registered, how did they have an LSID to cite? Something's funny here...Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-10488274871171510602012-10-04T04:20:04.241+08:002012-10-04T04:20:04.241+08:00I do seem to replicate some of the problems mentio...I do seem to replicate some of the problems mentioned by 'Anonymous' with regards to <i>PLoS One</i> nomenclatural acts. For example, <i>Stenopterygius aaleniensis</i> was published on August 1, and neither a search for the name or the LSID brings up any results. The same is true for <i>Mochlodon vorosi</i>, published on September 21; and <i>Europejara olcadesorum</i>, published on July 3. Even taxa published at the beginning of this year (e.g., <i>Acamptonectes densus</i>) do not come up in Zoobank.220myahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403919493457640549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-32904570699840929012012-10-03T21:45:20.574+08:002012-10-03T21:45:20.574+08:00I just tried doing a couple of searches on ZooBank...I just tried doing a couple of searches on ZooBank and got results without difficulty. Have the PLoS One names been registered properly, I wonder?Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-29830456391470515192012-10-03T21:33:23.601+08:002012-10-03T21:33:23.601+08:00Naive question:
what is the purpose of zoobank as...Naive question:<br /><br />what is the purpose of zoobank as a website? - the search function there brings up nothing; none of the names pubished in plosone recently come up; LSIDs don't resolve inspite of the plosone instructions.<br /><br />jayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com