Zoological Nomenclature and Electronic Publication-a reply to Dubois et al. (2013).

Iczn Iczn

doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3779.1.2

Abstract

A group of 19 authors (Dubois et al. 2013) recently raised concerns about the latest Amendment to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 2012a,b,c), that allows new names and other nomenclatural acts to gain legislative acceptance (become “available”) from publications issued and distributed electronically. Two editorials by publishers have already responded to some of the concerns (Anonymous 2013, Harold et al. 2013); some others will be dealt with here. Technological advances in electronic scientific communication have had a dramatic effect on scientific research and publication in recent years. Addressing this, and following a four-year period of public discussion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) voted to accept an Amendment to the 4th edition of the Code, thereby adapting the rules of zoological nomenclature to new realities of publication media and methods (ICZN 2012a,b,c). The Amendment dealt with the most important issues of publishing in an electronic world, but in all transitional times new regulatory guidelines may have difficulties keeping up with the rate of change. As mentioned by Harold et al. 2013, the “devil may be in the detail”, but it is a process that must nevertheless be started. The ICZN encourages all interested individuals and groups to participate in the discussion leading up to the 5th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, whether by the ICZN e-mail discussion list, the 5th edition Wiki, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or through other media, to help make the next edition satisfy the needs of the community.

Highlights

Dubois et al rightly commented that the recent changes to the Code that allow new names to become available through electronic publication, have profound implications
Given the excessive attention devoted to issues peripheral to electronic publication of new names in zoology, it is difficult to understand what Dubois et al consider to be essential issues, and what issues they find to be “of little practical importance” (p. 17)
Dubois et al (p. 38) argue that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) should not use its plenary power to ‘validate’ names introduced in pre-2012 electronic works, giving as one reason that “such an action would be an encouragement to publishers, editors and authors for bad quality taxonomic and nomenclatural work”

Summary

Nomenclature goes electronic

Dubois et al rightly commented that the recent changes to the Code that allow new names to become available through electronic publication, have profound implications. As correctly stated by Dubois et al, no names and nomenclatural acts issued and distributed only electronically before 2012 are available. Such names can be made available through the plenary power of the ICZN (Article 78). The ICZN can overrule any provisions of the Code and its Amendments through its plenary power, and so, for sufficient reason, may deem such names to take availability from a work published electronically before 2012, that is, ‘validate’ them. The ICZN will consider such Cases and, in determining its options, must consider the impact on nomenclatural stability—one of the objectives of the Code as stated in its Preamble

Optical discs and the end to confusion

ZooBank registration