[Zoobank-list] PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access

[Donat Agosti]

> We Zoologist should make an amendment to the Code requesting that the
original description has to be open access as one criterium for a name to
become valid. 

No matter how desirable open access of original taxonomic descriptions would
be, this is not straightforward to build into the Code. Open access defined
as "free online access" would essentially mean that an original description
should be accessible from its date of publication and be maintained as such
forever (i.e., equivalent to the requirement of permanency). Such would
potentially interfere with the commercial interests in products like books
and book series (and several journals), and even if the commercial aspects
could probably be dealt with, we would still have to deal with all the
practicalities of deposition of the digital product, i.e., the free online
source. Again, even this can be solved, and we will probably see some form
of registration of names materialise in the near future. But making open
access of the descriptions a requirement for availability of names would be
a change away from the "freedom of scientists to classify animals according
to taxonomic judgments" currently endorsed by the Code.

-> I do not see this point. The fact that a description had to be printed
had also nothing to do with "freedom of scientists to classify animals
according to taxonomic judgments" seems not to preclude that we move with
the time and make usage of the electronic medium.

I am sure that we see not only a registration but a fast move of our way of
communication into the digital world. In a few years, anything that is not
discoverable over the internet will be ignored. And with helping each other
out, eg by scanning (at least) publications in printed form, we can avoid
this.

I would like to see better facilities for web-based taxonomy and digital
archiving, a plausible model for a names registry, and ample, long-term
funding for a greatly expanded ICZN-secretariat. 

-> I agree, but this does not preclude each other. Foremost we need good
science, science that is accessible and used by others so we can make a case
that we get the support to maintain such growing systems. Zoobank is one,
the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Life another, and the growing number of
taxon specific name servers are all leading in this direction, all with
slightly different foci but enough overlap so that some of the elements
shared by all, such as nomenclarial systems can be resolved in collaboration
with the other organisms groups (botany etc.).

And just for the precision of terms, the decision on which of the
"available" names are "valid" is a taxonomic one. 

==>     thanks for this correction.

 

Donat

 

Thomas Pape 
Natural History Museum of Denmark 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20070125/5ce0dbcb/attachment.htm