According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature:
Article 8.6 Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself.
I see no evidence in the original paper that this condition has been met. Thus, under the rules of the ICZN, the name Darwinius may not be considered considered "published".
Read full post