# New descriptions don't stop coming.



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Apr 15, 2017)

Hi everyone, 

I found that yesterday, 14-Apr-2017, a description of a new taxon was published: 
_Paphiopedilum zulhermanianum_ Cavestro. 

For further information:

http://www.orchidspecies.com/paphzulhermanianum.htm

http://www.orchidspecies.com/paphizulhermanianum.pdf


All the best, 

Rob


----------



## Ozpaph (Apr 15, 2017)

That's an odd one.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 15, 2017)

I like it.


----------



## tenman (Apr 15, 2017)

The question that has me puzzled is in what publication was it published??


----------



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Apr 15, 2017)

It is published in
The Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia Nomenclature Note 5(4).

Rob


----------



## NYEric (Apr 15, 2017)

Nice. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## naoki (Apr 16, 2017)

tenman said:


> The question that has me puzzled is in what publication was it published??



Tennis, after seeing a couple of those, I was also skeptical about this kind of venue of non-peer-reviewed publications. So I briefly looked into it, and I guess it is ok since it has ISSN. Here is the relevant rule:

http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art29

I wouldn't think that IOSPE meets recommendation 29A.2, though.

I'm in academia, and it is weird to see that people publish this kind of paper in non-peer-reviewed place (we don't gain much "points" by non-peer-reviewed publications).


----------



## tenman (Apr 17, 2017)

naoki said:


> Tennis, after seeing a couple of those, I was also skeptical about this kind of venue of non-peer-reviewed publications. So I briefly looked into it, and I guess it is ok since it has ISSN. Here is the relevant rule:
> 
> http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art29
> 
> ...



Thank you. I was unaware this even existed. I don't like the idea of it not being issued in standard print format, but then it's not up to me. A primary issue I have with it is it can be altered at any time (either intentionally or by a glitch of some sort) with no record of it having been done. This was an ill-advised change, IMHO.


----------



## naoki (Apr 17, 2017)

That is a good point. There are many high-quality, peer-reviwed, and well-respected journals, which are online only (PLoS and BMC series in biology for examples). In these, I don't think we can change the original publication other than adding errata (I might be wrong since I haven't had to do so fortunately ).

I guess IAPT had to accommodate the online publication. But I agree the permanence and the lack of quality control is a concern. I might get into a trouble saying this, but there seems to be a very low bar in orchid alpha taxonomy (naming species). They seem to hurry to be the first without extensive/through studies. In most other fields of science, we try to be careful not to mistake, but they don't seem to care too much. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the recent Paphiopedilum descriptions, and I'm just talking about the general tendency.

But it is great that they got rid of the latin requirement.


----------



## tenman (Apr 17, 2017)

naoki said:


> That is a good point. There are many high-quality, peer-reviwed, and well-respected journals, which are online only (PLoS and BMC series in biology for examples). In these, I don't think we can change the original publication other than adding errata (I might be wrong since I haven't had to do so fortunately ).



Of course it can be altered. An apostrophe in the wrong font can destroy an entire webpage; correcting your typo above in the word 'reviewed' could easily do the same in an online journal despite good intentions; cleaning up, editing, maintaining, or reviewing any online site can irretrievably delete info or change it beyond recognition. A simple change of hosts once completely jumbled all 30-some pages on one site I maintained; the re-upload necessary in that transition altered much of the code beyond recognition or reclamation. A loss of power, a brief surge, anything happening like that to a host or server can do phenomenal damage and no amount of preparation or 'protection' can prevent all of that. However, printed copies in many hands can provide an unassailable record.




naoki said:


> But it is great that they got rid of the latin requirement.



They got rid of the latin requirement? When? Do you know where I can verify that?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 17, 2017)

Looking at provisions of electronic publication, the document must be PDF format, complying with ISO archival standards. Copies should be placed in multiple online repositories and printed copies should be distributed to multiple institutions. Any author that wants to get credit for precedence is going to conform to those requirements and recommendations, otherwise they are inviting someone to pirate and supersede their publication. 

I believe the dropping of the Latin requirement and the acceptance of internet publication both date from the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. I think the full text is here: http://iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php


----------

