Dear Charles,
Your notice concerning the availability of names published by means of the
internet may be correct (on certain points), but may create confusion and
unwanted situations.
Article 8 of the IZCN states: 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.
Article 8.6 is dealing with our case:
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.
[This article was most probably created to cover descriptions in articles on
CD-ROM's (and on the internet?)].
However, articles 9 and 9.8 state clearly that:
Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 8. none of the following constitutes published work
within the meaning of the Code:
9.8 text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g.
by means of the World Wibe Web);

In my opinion these articles are not clear at all and will create endless
discussions whether a description of a new species on the internet  and the
subsequent deposition of a printed copy of the text in 5 major publicly
accessible libraries (mentioned in the text) would constitute a valid
description or not.
What is a major public library? The Harman library of Life Sciences of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where they have recently dumped the complete
reprint library in the waste paper box? It is a major public library in
Israel! The library of the University of Lagos for an internet-paper dealing
with the description of several new Nigerian molluscs? Or the public library
of the town of Hoorn, Prov. North-Holland, serving the readers of
West-Friesland in the Netherlands?

As you mentioned by yourself: Internet-sites are usually not staying for
ever. Besides that, it is quite easy to make changes in an Internet-text
i.e. they do not constitute permanent texts as required by the code.

I hope that noboby will employ or misuse the internet in order to describe
new taxa as long as the provisions of the quoted articles in the IZCN remain
open for different interpretations.

Best regards,

Henk K. Mienis
National Mollusc Collection
Dept. Evolution, Systematics & Ecology
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
IL-91904 Jerusalem, Israel
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: charles sturm jr <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Citations


> Alfonso,
>   If you are publishing a paper, check with the editor how he or she
> requires web sites to be cited.  Generally they look for the author, the
> title of the page, the complete URL (which can be quite long; be sure to
> copy it correctly), and the date when you last viewed the page.
>   Some sites are quite stable, while others are fleeting.  When I wrote a
> paper for a class that I had taken, I had 10 web sites listed.  I checked
> them 2 days before the paper had to be turned in to my instructor and 3
> were already gone! This is why some of us are against web publishing.  The
> ICZN does allow descriptions of new taxa on the web as long as copies
> (print or CD-ROM) are placed in several institutions  (I believe a minimum
> of 5 institutions). Anyone interested in this should refer to the
> International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th. ed, 2000.
>
>   Hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie