CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION
30.1. Publication is not effected by communication of nomenclatural novelties at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts or typescripts or other unpublished material, or by distribution of electronic material other than as described in Art. 29.
Ex. 1. Cusson announced his establishment of the genus Physospermum in a memoir read at the Société des Sciences de Montpellier in 1770, and later in 1782 or 1783 at the Société de Médecine de Paris, but its effective publication dates from 1787 (in Hist. Soc. Roy. Méd. 5(1): 279).
30.2. An electronic publication is not effectively published if there is evidence within or associated with the publication that its content is merely preliminary and was, or is to be, replaced by content that the publisher considers final, in which case only the version with that final content is effectively published.
Ex. 2. “Rodaucea” was published in a paper first placed online on 12 January 2012 as a PDF document accessible through the website of the journal Mycologia (ISSN 0027-5514, print; ISSN 1557-2436, online). That document had a header stating “In Press”, and on the journal website it was qualified as “Preliminary version”, which is clear evidence that it was not considered by the publisher as final. Because the final version of the document appeared simultaneously online and in print, a correct citation of the name is: Rodaucea W. Rossi & Santam. in Mycologia 104 (print and online): 785. 11 Jun 2012.
Ex. 3. “Lycopinae” appeared in a paper first placed online on 26 April 2012 as an “Advance Access” PDF document accessible through the website of the American Journal of Botany (ISSN 0002-9122, print; ISSN 1537-2197, online). Because the journal website stated (May 2012) “AJB Advance Access articles … have not yet been printed or posted online by issue” and “minor corrections may be made before the issue is released”, this was evidently not considered the final version by the publisher. The name Lycopinae B. T. Drew & Sytsma was validly published in Amer. J. Bot. 99: 945. 1 May 2012, when the printed volume containing it was effectively published.
Ex. 4. The paper (in S. African J. Bot. 80: 63–66; ISSN 0254-6299) in which the name Nanobubon hypogaeum J. Magee appeared was effectively published online as a PDF document on 30 March 2012 in its “final and fully citable” form, prior to publication of the printed version (May 2012). Papers that appeared online in the same journal under the heading “In Press Corrected Proof” are not effectively published because the journal website clearly stated “Corrected proofs: articles that contain the authors’ corrections. Final citation details, e.g. volume/issue number, publication year and page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.”
Note 1. An electronic publication may be a final version even if details, e.g. volume, issue, article, or page numbers, are to be added or changed, provided that those details are not part of the content (see Art. 30.3).
30.3. Content of an electronic publication includes that which is visible on the page, e.g. text, tables, illustrations, etc., but it excludes volume, issue, article, and page numbers; it also excludes external sources accessed via a hyperlink or URL (Uniform Resource Locator).
Ex. 5. A paper describing the new genus Partitatheca and its four constituent species, accepted for the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society (ISSN 0024-4074, print; ISSN 1095-8339, online), was placed online on 1 February 2012 as an “Early View” PDF document with preliminary pagination (1–29). This was evidently the version considered final by the journal’s publisher because, in the document itself, it was declared the “Version of Record” (an expression defined by the standard NISO-RP-8-2008). Later, in the otherwise identical electronic version published together with the printed version on 27 February 2012, the volume pagination (229–257) was added. A correct citation of the generic name is: Partitatheca D. Edwards & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 168 (online): [2 of 29], 230. 1 Feb 2012, or just “… 168 (online): 230. 1 Feb 2012”.
Ex. 6. The new combination Rhododendron aureodorsale was made in a paper in Nordic Journal of Botany (ISSN 1756-1051, online; ISSN 0107-055X, print), first effectively published online on 13 March 2012 in “Early View”, the “Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue”, with a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) but with preliminary pagination (1-EV to 3-EV). When the printed version was published on 20 April 2012, the pagination of the electronic version was changed to 184–186 and the date of the printed version was added. The combination can be cited as Rhododendron aureodorsale (W. P. Fang ex J. Q. Fu) Y. P. Ma & J. Nielsen in Nordic J. Bot. 30 (online): 184. 13 Mar 2012 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01438.x).
Ex. 7. Two new Echinops species, including E. antalyensis, were described in Annales Botanici Fennici (ISSN 1797-2442, online; ISSN 0003-3847, print) in a paper effectively published in its definitive form on 13 March 2012 as an online PDF document, still with preliminary pagination (–4) and the watermark “preprint”. When the printed version was published on 26 April 2012, the online document was repaginated (–98) and the watermark removed. A correct citation of the name is: E. antalyensis C. Vural in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 49 (online): 95. 13 Mar 2012.
30.4. The content of a particular electronic publication must not be altered after it is effectively published. Any such alterations are not themselves effectively published. Corrections or revisions must be issued separately to be effectively published.
30.5. Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective. Indelible autograph produced on or after that date is not effectively published.
30.6. For the purpose of Art. 30.5, indelible autograph is handwritten material reproduced by some mechanical or graphic process (such as lithography, offset, or metallic etching).
Ex. 8. Léveillé, Flore du Kouy Tchéou (1914–1915), is a work lithographed from a handwritten text.
Ex. 9. Catalogus plantarum hispanicarum … ab A. Blanco lectarum (Webb & Heldreich, Paris, Jul 1850, folio) was effectively published as an indelible autograph catalogue.
Ex. 10. The Journal of the International Conifer Preservation Society, vol. 5. 1997 (“1998”), consists of duplicated sheets of typewritten text with handwritten additions and corrections in several places. The handwritten portions are not effectively published because they are indelible autograph published after 1 January 1953. Intended new combinations (e.g. “Abies koreana var. yuanbaoshanensis”, p. 53) for which the basionym reference is handwritten are not validly published. The entirely handwritten account of a new taxon (p. 61: name, Latin description, statement of type) is treated as not effectively published.
Ex. 11. The generic designation “Lindenia” was handwritten in ink by Bentham in the margin of copies of a published but not yet distributed fascicle of the Plantae hartwegianae (p. 84. 1841) to replace the struck-out name Siphonia Benth., which he had discovered was a later homonym of Siphonia Rich. ex Schreb. (Gen. Pl.: 656. 1791). Although the fascicle was then distributed, the handwritten portion was not itself reproduced by mechanical or graphic process and is not therefore effectively published.
30.7. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade catalogues or non-scientific newspapers, and on or after 1 January 1973 in seed-exchange lists, does not constitute effective publication.
30.8. The distribution on or after 1 January 1953 of printed matter accompanying specimens does not constitute effective publication.
Note 2. If the printed matter is also distributed independently of the specimens, it is effectively published.
Ex. 12. The printed labels of Fuckel’s Fungi rhenani exsiccati (1863–1874) are effectively published even though not independently issued. The labels antedate Fuckel’s subsequent accounts (e.g. in Jahrb. Nassauischen Vereins Naturk. 23–24. 1870).
Ex. 13. Vězda’s Lichenes selecti exsiccati (1960–1995) were issued with printed labels that were also distributed as printed fascicles; the latter are effectively published, and nomenclatural novelties appearing in Vězda’s labels are to be cited from the fascicles.
30.9. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of education for the purpose of obtaining a degree does not constitute effective publication unless the work includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or publisher.
Note 3. The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effectively published.
Ex. 14. “Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species – Systematic studies in Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects”, a “Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor … van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg, was effectively published on 8 June 2000 because it bears the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.
Ex. 15. The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduction of some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by Rietema, submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been printed (“Druk”) by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and was therefore effectively published.
Ex. 16. The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bears the statement “Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial printer. The generic name Roridomyces Rexer and the names of new species in Mycena, such as M. taiwanensis Rexer, are therefore validly published.
Ex. 17. The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du Nord”, defended in 1971, was not effectively published because it does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some libraries, names of new species of Lycoperdon, e.g. “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and “L. estonicum”, introduced there, were validly published in the effectively published paper “Espèces nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon (Gastéromycètes)” (Demoulin in Lejeunia, ser. 2, 62: 1–28. 1972).
Ex. 18. The dissertation by Funk, “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)”, submitted to the Ohio State University in 1980, was not effectively published because it does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. The same applies to facsimile copies of the dissertation printed from microfiche and distributed, on demand, from 1980 onward, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. The name Montanoa imbricata V. A. Funk, introduced in the dissertation, was validly published in the effectively published paper “The systematics of Montanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 1–133. 1982).
Ex. 19. The dissertation “Revision der südafrikanischen Astereengattungen Mairia und Zyrphelis” submitted in 1990 by Ursula Zinnecker-Wiegand to the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich) is not effectively published because it does not include an ISBN, the name of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any statement that it was intended to be effectively published under the Code, even though about 50 copies were distributed to other public libraries and all the other formalities for the publication of new taxa were met. The designations in the thesis became validly published names in the effectively published paper by Ortiz & Zinnecker-Wiegand (in Taxon 60: 1194–1198. 2011).
30A.1. Preliminary and final versions of the same electronic publication should be clearly indicated as such when they are first issued. The phrase “Version of Record” should only be used to indicate a final version in which the content will not change.
30A.2. To facilitate citation, final versions of electronic publications should contain final pagination.
30A.3. Authors and editors are strongly recommended to include page numbers on the actual pages of publications, such that if electronic publications are printed, these page numbers are visible.
30A.4. It is strongly recommended that authors avoid publishing nomenclatural novelties in ephemeral printed matter of any kind, in particular printed matter that is multiplied in restricted and uncertain numbers, in which the permanence of the text may be limited, for which effective publication in terms of number of copies is not obvious, or that is unlikely to reach the general public. Authors should also avoid publishing nomenclatural novelties in popular periodicals, in abstracting journals, or on correction slips.
Ex. 1. Kartesz provided an unpaginated printed insert titled “Nomenclatural innovations” to accompany the electronic version (1.0) of the Synthesis of the North American flora produced on compact disk (CD-ROM, which is not effectively published under Art. 30.1). This insert, which is effectively published under Art. 29–31, is the place of valid publication of 41 new combinations, which also appear on the disk, in an item authored by Kartesz: “A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland” (e.g. Dichanthelium hirstii (Swallen) Kartesz in Kartesz & Meacham, Synth. N. Amer. Fl., Nomencl. Innov.: . Aug 1999). Kartesz’s procedure is not to be recommended, as the insert is unlikely to be permanently stored and catalogued in libraries and so reach the general public.
30A.5. To aid availability through time and place, authors publishing nomenclatural novelties should give preference to periodicals that regularly publish taxonomic work, or else they should send a copy of a publication (printed or electronic) to an indexing centre appropriate to the taxonomic group. When such publications exist only as printed matter, they should be deposited in at least ten, but preferably more, generally accessible libraries throughout the world.
30A.6. Authors and editors are encouraged to mention nomenclatural novelties in the summary or abstract, or list them in an index in the publication.