l_raty
laurent raty
Granted, 94 pages was probably too much... :smoke:
And concerns about "Art.8.6 statements" had actually been expressed well before this anyway. In the last period preceding the Amendment, the Commission made PLoS and other online-only editors produce a printed edition of their papers that included nomenclatural acts. This involved printing numerous identical copies of the work and offering them to the public ("8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase"), at a date that then became the publication date for the purposes of nomenclature. It was quite clear from this point that sending copies to a closed circle of libraries amounts to a private circulation, ie., it is not publication. Unfortunately, a significant number of names are now in use, despite having been published online, and not in a way that was really Code-compliant; the Amendment did not solve the situation of these names. The Commission has since argued that such names can be declared published under the Plenary Powers. This is certainly true, but then those favouring urraoensis should make it clear that they request the validation of the publication of this name from the Commission. Not just argue that fenwickorum being trashed is OK because there is another name anyway.
And concerns about "Art.8.6 statements" had actually been expressed well before this anyway. In the last period preceding the Amendment, the Commission made PLoS and other online-only editors produce a printed edition of their papers that included nomenclatural acts. This involved printing numerous identical copies of the work and offering them to the public ("8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase"), at a date that then became the publication date for the purposes of nomenclature. It was quite clear from this point that sending copies to a closed circle of libraries amounts to a private circulation, ie., it is not publication. Unfortunately, a significant number of names are now in use, despite having been published online, and not in a way that was really Code-compliant; the Amendment did not solve the situation of these names. The Commission has since argued that such names can be declared published under the Plenary Powers. This is certainly true, but then those favouring urraoensis should make it clear that they request the validation of the publication of this name from the Commission. Not just argue that fenwickorum being trashed is OK because there is another name anyway.
