[Zoobank-list] Alternate Scenarios

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks to Doug for getting this discussion started.  I should point out to
those who have not yet read the online "technical" article
(http://www.iczn.org/new%20ZooBank.htm) that it includes descriptions
(including necessary IZCN Code alterations) of two alternative scenarios.
In one scenario, all existing publication requirements would remain in place
for names established after 2007 (e.g., Chapter 3 of the Code) and an
additional requirement would be added that new names must also be Registered
on ZooBank. In the other scenario, the act of registration itself serves the
same minimal requirements as publication.  It is not so much that
Registration would "replace" traditional peer-reviewed publications of new
taxa, but rather that the act of registration would be designed to *fulfill*
the minimum requirements already in place for establishing an available name
in zoology, and therefore secondary publication by traditional means would
no longer be a requirement over and above the act of registration.

Doug Yanega proposes a third scenario, which is that the act of registration
would be accompanied by an electronic manuscript that would (presumably)
include significantly more information than the current minimum requirements
for establishing new names under ICZN, and would also provide for rapid and
open-access peer review.

In summary:

Scenario 1 (Mandatory registration only)
This scenario establishes ZooBank as the universal registry of all new
zoological names [and nomenclatural "acts" -- however those end up being
defined], and mandates (after the next version of the ICZN Code) that all
new names be registered in order to be "available" according to ICZN rules.
All other aspects of the existing (4th Edition) Code would remain in
effect -- *including* the requirement that the new names be published
according to existing rules (e.g., "durable media", etc.). Thus, names still
would need to be published as they currently are, but they *also* must be
registered within some pre-defined time window in order to become available.
This scenario includes provisions to manage the temporally dissociated
"publication" and "registration" events (both of which are required for name
availability).

Scenario 2 (Registration fulfills Publication)
This scenario includes the same mandatory registration requirement as
Scenario 1, but defines the act of registration as, itself, minimally
fulfilling the act of publication, thereby making names "available"
(sensu-ICZN) the moment they are registered.  Secondary publication of
descriptions by traditional (or any other) means would certainly be
encouraged, but would no longer be an additional *requirement* for
nomenclatural availability over and above the act of registration. This
scenario decouples the "science" side of taxonomy from the "nomenclature"
side of taxonomy. The registration process would include the same minimal
bits of information that are currently required for a name to be validly
"published", except for the "durable media" requirement.

Scenario 3 (Yanega scenario)
This scenario was outlined in detail in Doug's recent post to this list.  If
I understand Doug correctly, it is similar to Scenario #2, but would also
include a more robust "electronic publication" feature in some ways
analogous to ZooTaxa, whereby the science and nomenclature of taxonomy are
still intertwined (as they are in Scenario 1), but they are done so through
a single electronic publication venue embedded within ZooBank, that includes
full peer-review, etc. as Doug described.  I'm assuming (Doug?) that this
scenario would require the peer-review cycle to take place (by whatever
algorithm for determining sufficient review that is adopted) *before* a name
is available (sensu-ICZN).  Thus, the simple act of registration of a name
with minimal data elements would not necessarily, by itself, establish
availability of the new name. Is this about right, Doug?

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, that
have been discussed at some length by a number of list participants already
(I'll refrain from attempting to articulate them now). Very briefly, my
current thinking is to embrace Scenario #2, but incorporate within ZooBank a
feature set that allows electronic, peer-reviewed publication via the system
that Doug described.  This electronic, peer-reviewed publication process
would not be a minimal requirement for name availability, but would allow an
easy way for taxonomists to directly integrate the "science" of what they do
into the nomenclatural procedure, if they so desired.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html