The name "N. smaugi" _only_ occurs as a label of a cladogram branch in fig. 10. There is no diagnosis and no type specimen; the name is thus unavailable under both Art. 13.1 (diagnosis required, or citation of a diagnosis elsewhere, or the name has to be an explicit replacement name) and Art. 16.4 (explicit type fixation required).
It can be safely ignored.
(Failure to comply with Art. 13 specifically makes it a nomen nudum, says the ICZN glossary entry for that term.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With that out of the way, here's my exploration of another problem posed by that paper and many, many, many others â probably the vast majority of all that were published in the last nine years.
> Since it is still in-press, it can maybe be corrected before final publication?
Â
Nope! "In press" refers to the literal printing press that will be used to produce the dead-tree edition, which is irrelevant because of this little paragraph on the 3rd page:
Â
>>
Nomenclatural acts.âThis published work and the nomenclatural
acts it contains, have been registered in ZooBank:
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:84FCB40E-8207-4EDF-BA46-
5455101EE488
<<
The paper thus fulfills Art. 8.5:
>>
8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically
To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must
8.5.1. have been issued after 2011,
8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and
8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred.
<<
(Art. 8.5.2 is fulfilled by this line on the first page: "Received 26 March 2020, accepted 13 June 2020, available online 25 September 2020.")
Thanks to Art. 21.9
>>
21.9. Works issued on paper and electronically
A name or nomenclatural act published in a work issued in both print and electronic editions takes its date of publication from the edition that first fulfilled the criteria of publication of Article 8 and is not excluded by Article 9.
<<
, the ICZN thus considers the paper and the names published since today. It's too late to correct anything.
...
...except that the ICZN is, as usual, not explicit enough that I could actually tell for sure. There is Art. 9:
>>
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
[...]
9.9. preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication (see Article 21.8.3);
<<
and Art. 21.8:
>>
21.8. Advance distribution of separates and preprints
Advance distribution of separates or preprints affects date of publication as specified by the following criteria:
[...]
21.8.3. Some works are accessible online in preliminary versions before the publication date of the final version. Such advance electronic access does not advance the date of publication of a work, as preliminary versions are not published (Article 9.9).
<<
Nowhere (glossary included) is it explained what a "preliminary version" or indeed a "final version" is. Maybe the paper as now available is a "preliminary version" because its volume and page numbers are "(X): xxxâxxx" (the pages other than the first are numbered 2â19, but that will likely change once the dead-tree edition comes out). But that is the _only_ difference to the future paper edition; the layout will not change, let alone the content (down to which letters appear on which pages), so it sounds like Art. 8.1.3.2 is fulfilled:
>>
Article 8. What constitutes published work
A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met
A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures
8.1.3.1. numerous identical and durable copies (see Article 8.4), or
8.1.3.2. widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout.
<<
Maybe "preliminary version" is intended to refer only to accepted manuscripts that are put online as such but have not yet undergone layouting or proofreading; various journals like Systematic Biology or indeed Acta Pal. Pol. do that, and what we're talking about here is clearly not an unformatted accepted manuscript. And even _such_ things are not "separates or preprints", which is what Art. 21.8 is supposedly about...
Have you noticed how infuriatingly circular Art. 9.9 is? I don't mean the fact that 9.9 and 21.8.3 cite each other; several Articles are repeated in different places in the Code, which makes it a bit more readable, and that's a good thing. I mean that 9.9 says "in advance of publication" _in the definition_ of what does not count as publication, presented as the complete list of exceptions to Art. 8 which defines what _does_ count as publication â everything that fulfills Art. 8 is published unless it's excluded by Art. 9.