Descriptions published in the Internet?

[Juan Artigas]

The linked article was just published and made circulating in the Internet. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Internet is not alone to be considered a publication in terms of the ICZM. If I remember correctly, the names may be rendered unusable by having done so. I guess I have to dive into the code today....

http://www.auda.org.uy/audanew/arcoarti.pdf

[michi tobler]

Hi Juan,

I think you are correct. An exception of course would be the online journals like PLoS or BMC.

CHeers, m

[Philippe Burnel]

It seems to me that there are only 3 langages authorized by the code : English, french and german.
So this publication, under this rule and if I'm right, is not valid.

[michi tobler]

Nope. Spanish is a valid language.

Cheers, m

[Philippe Burnel]

OK;
I found this in the code :

9. A work not printed on paper issued after 1999 in numerous identical, durable and unalterable copies (e.g. on read-only laser disks) may be treated as published if the work itself contains a statement that copies in the form in which it was published have been deposited in at least five major publicly accessible libraries named in the work itself.

10. For purposes of zoological nomenclature, the following kinds of material are treated as unpublished:

(a) electronically distributed text or illustrations;

[Mark Smith]

Regarding this statement:

"may be treated as published if the work itself contains a statement that copies in the form in which it was published have been deposited in at least five major publicly accessible libraries named in the work itself."

Has anyone checked to find out if this has taken place? I wonder if, or hope that, there is any way to salvage this paper/new species names...

[Colby Dixon]

Regarding this statement:

"may be treated as published if the work itself contains a statement that copies in the form in which it was published have been deposited in at least five major publicly accessible libraries named in the work itself."

Has anyone checked to find out if this has taken place? I wonder if, or hope that, there is any way to salvage this paper/new species names...

Perhaps they were deposited in the institutions listed in the "Materials and Methods" section? However, I only count 4 listed there...

[michi tobler]

It seems like the manuscript has been seen by various experts in the field and has previously been rejected for publication elsewhere. I do not think that the publication online was intended by the authors, at least not as a formal publication. What implications this might have for the availability of the names I do not know.

Cheers, m

[taeniopareius]

I can't read Spanish so I wonder what is people's opinion on the content of the paper? Is it good enough for the description of the 2 species [clear diagnosis etc]? Why is this description rejected for publication?

[Bas Pels]

I downloaded the descrioption, because i'm learning spanish, but it is not easy to understand. Besides, I'm not trained in taxonomy, or biology for that matter. Therefore, I better refrain from trying to judge the article, but as it was rejected, there must be something missing, or wrong.

Personally, I do miss, however, some kind of research after relations. The two species were described, and give na name, but to me, perhaps due to my lack of understanding the article, no attention was direxcted to finding out any relations with other gymnogeophagus species

[taeniopareius]

Any progress on this?