> 3, once points 1 and 2 above have been settled, we should go ahead > and publish and implement the PhyloCode, in the context of David's > proposal (with a list of names "reserved" for the Companion Volume, > at least until its publication, because we cannot be sure that all > submissions will eventually be accepted). Names and definitions, that is, so that people can't scoop the companion volume by publishing homodefinitional synonyms and so that they're deterred from publishing what will likely end up as heterodefinitional synonyms. In the controversial case of Amphibia (the one I know about), both proposed definitions should be on the list. > I think that the only drawback for UC Press is a slight increase in > distribution fees (two shipments instead of one). But there are > advantages to modularity; some colleagues may want one or the other, > but not both, of the publications. In particular, the Code is so short that few people will even want it on paper; it is very easily and very quickly accessible on the website. The companion volume, in contrast, will be much larger; although electronic versions have the advantage of being searchable, many people will nonetheless find it easier to have a book standing next to their desk for frequent reference than having to load and plow through a huge PDF file all the time.* So, I think a lot more people will buy the companion volume than the Code; I expect the Code to go mostly to institutional libraries. * Making the chapters of the companion volume available as separate PDFs might change this, though. Few people will need all chapters.
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.