A particular bugbear of mine is that Articles 8 and 9 of the ICZN's (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,4th edition, Natural History Museum, London, the ICZN specifically insists on publication on paper for any work to be considered published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature.

Recomendation 8B Desirability of works on paper states "Authors and publishers are strongly urged to ensure that a new scientific name or nomenclatural act is first published in a work printed on paper."

Article 9 which states "none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the code.

9.9 refers to "text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web)"

This bias in favour of print, and against the Internet is purblind and totally unjustified.

Presumably the principal that these rules are meant to support is that of accessibility and permanence.

But I know of cases where authors have published details of new taxa in obscure journals (such as Canberra Birds Notes) that are for most of the world extremely inaccessible.

The WorldBirdInfo web site gets some 2000 visits per month.  It is available to anyone with an an internet connection anywhere in the world.

The ban on internet publication of acts is particularly stupid when it comes to what I refer to as nomenclatural housekeeping.

For example, Article 23.9 Reversal of precedence essentially argues for nomenclatural stability.  It says that when 23.9.1.1.a senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899

and 23.9.1.2 the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

23.9.2. states "An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this article....

I applaud the support for stability.  But I think the conditions are 23.9.2. are too strict.  For example, when it comes to the names of subspecies, I think you would be pushing it to find 25 works by at least 10 authors.  So does this mean that any case of an older name for a subspecies must replace the younger name?

In searching through old synonymies and primary sources for the preparation of this database, I have come across dozens of cases where secondary homonymy applies.  Very often, an earlier name was ruled out during the nineteenth century on the grounds of homomymy; but there was in fact neither primary nor secondary homonymy in the modern sense.

But where could I publish this stuff in print?  Some people may say " in the Bulletin of the ICZN".  But that Bulletin is years behind.  the sensible thing would be for the ICZN to have a moderated website where people could post such proposals.

But first, of course, we have to get the ICZN to get modern enough to accept web-based publication.

What do you think?

John Penhallurick