[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

    Kevin Padian kpadian at berkeley.edu
    Wed Jan 11 14:25:12 EST 2012 
    That doesn't seem to make sense; if people start constructing
apomorphy-based definitions and if then after five years the CPN were to
eliminate them?  Besides, when is the PhyloCode going into effect?  -- kp

> 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 
 
>  
>  
>  
>  
-- 
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
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: