• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Bean Goose group (1 Viewer)

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
This issue of the Literary Gazette bears the date "Saturday, March 27, 1852".
I don't known if the dates of the Zoologist are precisely known, but a note dated "Charlton, Dundrum, near Dublin, April 14, 1852", appears two pages ahead of the description. (The name must have been published there after this date, plus the time needed for a letter to reach London from Ireland, plus the time needed to have it printed in the journal.)

The two texts seem identical.
Thanks! Are there (or more importantly, were there then) any restrictions on where a validly published description can appear? I know with botanical publication newspapers are not admissible as formal publications, presumably because they are not considered permanent enough. What the Literary Gazette would count as, I don't know.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Thanks! Are there (or more importantly, were there then) any restrictions on where a validly published description can appear? I know with botanical publication newspapers are not admissible as formal publications, presumably because they are not considered permanent enough. What the Literary Gazette would count as, I don't know.
The Code requirement is that a publication "must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record".

A newspaper might indeed be regarded as published for the purpose of providing immediate information rather than any permanent record; but, in birds at least, I know of of no cases that are currently treated this way. Some bird names are treated as available from outlets that I would regard as quite clearly less permanent that the Literary Gazette (things like this: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/63664143 ). The Literary Gazette at least produced an index to each of their volumes: to me, this demonstrates an intention to make their content permanently searchable and retrievable.

In 1990, the Commission conserved the spelling of the genus-group name Semioptera Gray 1859, which had usually been taken from PZS and was threatened by an earlier publication as 'Semeioptera' in the Literary Gazette. They did not do this by ruling that the Literary Gazette was an unacceptable venue; what they did was to place the name on the Official List as dating from its publication in the Literary Gazette, with a ruling under the Plenary Powers to the effect that 'Semeioptera', as used there, was an incorrect OS: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12230496 .
In 1997, the SCON (Schodde & Bock) tried to obtain a global suppression, by the Commission, of all the Gould names introduced in the Literary Gazette and the Athenaeum, and which had been later published in PZS: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12446416 . This failed: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34357821 .


PS - Re. "Are there (or more importantly, were there then)": only the current edition of the ICZN has any force, so the only thing that really matters is "Are there". (This is ICZN 86.3.)
 
Last edited:

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
PS - Re. "Are there (or more importantly, were there then)": only the current edition of the ICZN has any force, so the only thing that really matters is "Are there". (This is ICZN 86.3.)
Thanks!

Of the last, yes, but when they add a new rule changing what is or isn't valid publication, I presume they make that effective only from the date of the new rule? So if newspapers had been allowed in the 1850s but then disallowed by a new rule introduced in say, 1930, it would only disallow new names in newspapers post-1930 and not be retroactive. Again, that's how it works in the botanical rules that I'm more familiar with (in botany, newspaper publication was disallowed as from 1 January 1953 on).
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Of the last, yes, but when they add a new rule changing what is or isn't valid publication, I presume they make that effective only from the date of the new rule?
The default for any new rule is that it applies retroactively.
Of course, care must be taken that new rules do not become disruptive. Hence, these are frequently made effective for names published after a given date only, while the rule which applied previously (or some rule similar to it) remains effective for names published earlier. But, in such cases, *both* rules *must* be stated in the last edition of the Code, together with the dates limiting their respective periods of application.
An older rule which is not explicitly re-stated in the last edition of the Code ceases to exist.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top