Posted by:
oxyuranus
at Thu Oct 9 21:45:33 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by oxyuranus ]
G'day Ray,
I had a wonderful visit to Melbourne last, but was somewhat disappointed that there were no herp meetings worth attending while I was there. Oh well, maybe we will have an opportunity to cross swords one of these days...
>>No doubt Richard, Wolfgang will shout from the hilltops in unison with you, and reading the spam posts preceding on the aust herps list was some good entertainment after three days
>>in court fighting for the right to publish truth ...
>>Anyway I avoided jail - this week ...
Great to hear, will you be publishing the transcripts on smuggled.com???
A good laugh never goes astray.
>>Anyway, in terms of definition of publication under the current code, to
>>save further bickering, I'll reproduce it here for all to read and let
>>them make up their minds.
>>It reads as follows:
>>XXXArticle 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded
>>as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies
>>with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the
>>provisions of Article 9.
>>8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
>>8.1. 1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and
>>permanent scientific record,
Hmmmm since when is a small amateur herp society newsletter issued for the "purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record" ???
Oh and I don't suppose you know the "publications" ISDN do you by any chance?
And as for the "scientific" merit of you work ... well we just won't even go there.
>>8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
>>purchase, and
>>8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing
>>simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous
>>identical and durable copies.
I doubt very much that printing off copies from a PC/MAC as and when needed in a purely adhoc manner constitutes assurance of "identical and durable copies" especially given the admissions of the publisher concerning the less than durable print quality...
XXX
>>Elsewhere the code relies on the minum number of copies being "five" and
>>so 140 is over the line here - hence the name is available and the only
>>question becomes as follows: Is the taxa named distinct at either
>>subspecies level or higher?
>>If that is so, the name is used, if not, it becomes a junior synonym of
>>C. viridis or whatever species it is.
>>Note there are now three known subspecies of C. viridis that carry
>>names.
>>ALL THE BEST
Lets cut to the chase Ray:
Submit your next "taxonomic" masterpiece in a mainstream referred scientific journal (Journal of Herpetology, Copeia etc), and if it is accepted and published then I will be the very first to scream your praises from the top of the Sydney Harbour bridge ...
Otherwise just keep producing crap in successively obscure newsletters and get used to copping just as much crap in return from WW, myself and naturally all of our various "alter egos" as you describe them (gee I can't wait for the day you suggest that either Richard or one of us is an alter ego of the other... hahaha).
Take care Ray (and keep up the medication...)
David Williams
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Mmm, a bit like my adders, is it? - oxyuranus, Thu Oct 9 21:45:33 2003