E. J. Power tells us :
 
> Though the internet is not yet mentioned (more like ignored by not
> mentioning) it will be used, soon, mark my words, for scientific
> publications. Not addressing the internet is akin to sticking your head
> in the sand or "out of sight out of mind". Once the "older"
> conservatives retire the modern young turks will draft internet
> publication guidelines.
 
.......and then stand back. Just being young does not automatically mean
being right.
I have seen the draft fourth edition of the ICZN and its sections on
electronic publishing, but I predict they will fail to gain acceptance. Fan
of the Internet though I am, it is too mutable and susceptible to
interference for scientific publication. Remember in the old days when the
Soviet Union had a department (in the Interior Ministry) dedicated to
recalling and doctoring school textbooks to eliminate pictures and accounts
of people who had become unacceptable to the regime? Even with photocopiers
banned, photography of document pages a crime and the location of every
copy registered with the ministry, they couldn't quite erase all traces of
any particular picture or article. On the Web, however, this would be very
easy indeed to do; to cover up errors, it would only be necessary to doctor
the original. Even if you or I had downloaded copies earlier, it's our word
against theirs that we did, and that we did not cook the document up
ourselves. No, set type on paper is going to be with us for some time yet,
and the Internet will be a useful adjunct to conventional publication.
Here in Japan, certain shell books have been reprinted dozens of times, and
with each new printing the authors often inserted amendments and additions,
without saying anything. The result is a deep taxonomic swamp, into which
Rudiger Bieler and Richard Petit (among others) have bravely dipped a toe.
Accidental validations, un-noted new combinations and nomen nudae galore
lurk among the various editions. With no record of which emendations were
made or when, untangling the knots becomes a dreadful chore. How much more
would this become the case if instantly-correctible websites were used to
publish things? How many 'editions' per week would there be? Can you not
imagine unscrupulous authors, on having an error in their work brought to
their attention, simply editing the glitch out of their website and then
pretending it was never there? With nothing on paper, how could anyone
prove it ever was? Even if registered copies were kept by some central
library (and who will set up, administer and most importantly fund that is
something about which Internet publishing enthusiasts are strangely
silent), who could prove that these in turn had not been edited after
downloading?
 
If it ain't on paper, it doesn't exist. I am not 'older', but in this
respect I am most certainly 'conservative'.