Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Nomenclaturally Valid?

Posted by keesey on 21 May 2009 at 16:56 GMT

Some people have voiced concerns that the publication of the names "Darwinius" and "Darwinius masillae" does not meet ICZN standards, e.g.: http://blogs.discovermaga...

Specifically, they cite this rule:

"ARTICLE 8.6 - WORKS PRODUCED AFTER 1999 BY A METHOD THAT DOES NOT EMPLOY PRINTING ON PAPER. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself."

The paper contains no such statement. IIRC, neither do some other PLoS ONE papers which introduce new names ("Panphagia", "Maiacetus").

What is the authors' response? The publishers'? Are there plans to address this? (Or should the ICZN be modified?)

No competing interests declared.

RE: Nomenclaturally Valid?

JSZijlstra replied to keesey on 21 May 2009 at 19:23 GMT

Electronic journals usually deposit a few copies in major libraries, but I have not been able to find any information regarding this on the PLoS website. I also checked the libraries of the AMNH, the Smithsonian and the NHM (obvious choices to deposit hard copies), but none has the journal on paper.

The ICZN should, I think, certainly not be retroactively modified, but there is serious talk of changing this provision for the next edition, so that electronic publishing becomes easier in the future.

Yes, the publisher should probably address this issue.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Nomenclaturally Valid?

keesey replied to JSZijlstra on 22 May 2009 at 17:53 GMT

It looks like they have -- see the next most recent comment.

No competing interests declared.