I'm not suggesting that the proposal never be considered, but things have not changed all that much since the Paris meeting. I would not be opposed to reconsidering the issue after the PhyloCode had been in effect for 5 years or more. Kevin On 1/11/12 12:41 PM, "Kevin Padian" < kpadian at Berkeley.EDU > wrote: Dear Phil and Kevin, I'm happy to support delaying the consideration of the apomorphy-based proposal. I am not sure that it should be rejected out of hand, even if it has been discussed before; the Paris meeting was some time ago and perhaps there should be general weighing in from the community. -- kp > I think it is counter-productive to discuss eliminating apomorphy-based > definitions at this stage. This issue was considered and rejected during > the process of developing the PhyloCode. If I remember correctly, the > species issue is in a different category than other previously discussed > issues in that people who wished to eliminate considerations about species > from the PhyloCode were encouraged to develop a proposal (at the Paris > meeting). Other proposals that have been rejected should not be up for > continuous debate, or we will never make any progress. > > Kevin > > > On 1/11/12 10:25 AM, "Phil Cantino" < cantino at ohio.edu > wrote: > > Kevin, would you mind delaying consideration of your proposal until after > we finish with the species proposal? I'm afraid that it will get rather > confusing if the CPN tries to discuss two complex issues simultaneously. > Phil > > > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Kevin Padian wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> As long as we are considering the Cellinese et al proposal to eliminate >> the privilege of species, I would like to submit some reasons why I >> believe (with many) that apomorphy-based definitions should also be >> eliminated. The attached proposal offers some rationales, not all of >> which are particularly original; but I think on balance that doing >> without >> apomorphy-based definitions will relieve confusion among rank and file >> taxonomists and will also potentially eliminate a lot of poorly >> conceived >> definitions contributed to the database. I welcome everyone's comments, >> and I hope that there can be a reasonable time for comments to be posted >> by the general community. Thanks -- kp >> >> -- >> Kevin Padian >> Department of Integrative Biology & >> Museum of Paleontology >> University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 >> 510-642-7434 >> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php >> <CPN proposal against >> apo-baseddefs.docx>_______________________________________________ >> CPN mailing list >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu >> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > -- Kevin Padian Department of Integrative Biology & Museum of Paleontology University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 510-642-7434 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.