6 Bulletin ol'Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (See also BZN 52: 228-233, 294-302) The following are amongst the comments which have been received. Further comments are invited; they should be sent as soon as possible to the Executive Secretary ofthe Commission. All comments received by 31 May 1996 will be fully considered by the Code Editorial Committee, whether or not they have been published in the Bulletin. (1) W.D.L. Ride (Chairman, Editorial Committee) Department ofGeology, The Australian National University. P.O. Box 4. Canberra. A.C.T. 2600, Australia Article lib in the discussion draft was prepared by the Editorial Committee to meet the objective of facilitating the introduction of names into the zoological literature byensuringthat every new name (no matterhow obscurely orinaccessibly published) is made known to zoologists through the widest and most generally available medium, as well as in its original published work. This would reduce the likelihood of the subsequent discovery of overlooked names and displacement by them ofsynonyms that had been widely publicized from their initial publication. Considering that zoologists would be unlikely to agree to a proposal that to become available every new name must be 'registered' with a central authority (as occurs in microbiology and is proposed for botany), with both availability and date of precedence determined by the act of registration, the Editorial Committee proposed fordiscussionthat,whileprecedencewouldcontinuetobedetermined from the date of publication of the original work, to be available a new name must be recorded as such in Zoological Recordwithin five years ofits initial publication. Authors are urged to assume responsibility for ensuring that the journal or monograph in which their new name is published is a work that is scanned by ZoologicalRecord(proposed Recommendation 1lA); thesupport ofotherzoologists using as yet unrecorded names is also envisaged (Recommendations IIB and IIC). Comments on thedraft(e.g. Crosskey. BZN 52: 229-232) havedrawn attention to the difficulty presented by the period of uncertainty or 'provisional availability" of new names resulting from this proposal. There have also been objections to Zoological Record being used in this way on grounds of its inaccessibility to some authors. An alternative to making listing in Zoological Record a condition ofavailability hasbeen proposed to the Editorial Committee, namely that listing should affect only the relative precedence ofnew names, leaving their availability unaffected. Byaffectingvalidityonly,suchaprovisionwouldcontinuetosupport theprinciple that very obscure and unnoticed names should not be introduced retrospectively to displace names that have become used widely (even in a short time), but would not remove from authors the right to propose and make available names in whatever vehicle of publication they choose. It would maintain the continued availability of overlooked names to be used as valid when they did not threaten names in use. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 7 The proposed use ofZoologicalRecordwould be maintained as the best means of notifyingpubHcation ofnew names. Aswell as being published on paper. Zoological Record is accessible electronically and on compact disk; this is ofespecial value to those outside major institutions. Its use on international electronic networks will increasesteadilyand, with thealreadyagreedparticipation ofitspublishers, it will be easily possible for zoologists to determine free ofcharge whether a name has been recorded or not, orwhether a work is scanned byZoologicalRecord(see Rosenberg, BZN 52: 300). As an example of the way in which a shift of the proposal to one that affected validityratherthantheavailabilityofanamecouldwork,ifonlyoneoftwoavailable synonyms had been recorded within five years by Zoological Record, that name would have precedence over the other (which would remain available for use as a valid name when not regarded as synonymous with the recorded name). Ifneither name had been recorded, the normal rules for determining validity would apply. Both advantages and disadvantages can be foreseen. The Editorial Committee invites comment. (2) Walter J. Bock Department ofBiological Sciences, Columbia University, New York 10027-7004. U.S.A. I should like first to make four general comments on the draft, (a) I consider that no rules in the Code should rely on the subjectivejudgments ofzoologists, and that the need to refer cases to the Commission should be avoided wherever possible, (b)I urgestronglythat a statementbeinsertedearlyintheCodethatthenameofthe author and the date of publication are integral parts of the scientific name ofany taxon. This is quite fundamental: for example, Procellaria Linnaeus, 1766 is not the sameas Procellaria Linnaeus, 1758. (c)All theeffortsoftheCommission toconserve names are negated by the lack ofany appropriate provision in the Code (cf Article 78f). I know that the 1958 International Congress of Zoology failed to ratify the earlier rules and the original purpose ofthe Official Lists, but this does not prevent the Commission from formulating adequate rules; this must be done in the present revision of the Code. This matter and the proposed Lists of Available Names in particular taxonomic groups are so important that they should not be immersed in Articles 77 and 78, which deal with the powers and duties ofthe Commission; they should have Articles oftheir own. I would recommend strongly that names on the Official Lists should have precedence over other names, as many zoologists already believe to be the case; ifnot, then a clear statement must be made as to the purpose ofthe Lists, (d) The Editorial Committee haveevidently decided that the numbering ofArticlesinthenewCodeshouldbeexactlythesameasinthecurrentedition. While this is useful in principle, it is my strong feeling that the result is that material is put togetherintoArticlesinaconfusedwayandthatsomematerialthatshouldbeplaced prominently very early in the Code only appears much later, simply in order to preservethe numberingsystem. I urgethat theprimaryconcernshouldbetheproper position ofmaterial in order to make the Code clearer to users. Somespecificpointsareasfollows(Ihavesuppliedaconsiderablenumberofother details to the Editorial Committee). Article Ih(3): theexpression 'hybrids as such' is