Dear colleagues, I support the compromize of delaying discussion of Kevins's (Padian) proposal to forbid apomorphy-based definitions till after we have settled the issue of the species proposal. But I disagree slightly with Kevin's (de Queiroz) statement that not much has changed since the Paris meeting. We have had 8 years to think about these issues, and the CPN's composition and even number of members has changed. I think that it is really up to the whold CPN committee's to decide if we discuss this or not, but I think that usually, by default, we agree to discuss, although we may or may not approve the amendment. And I don't want to disucss a long discussion on this topic now, since most of us seem to agree to postpone it, but I would be favorable to at least advising against apomorphy-based definitions, as I had emphasized at the Paris meeting. Best wishes, Michel On 11/01/12 19:41, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote: > 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 > > -- UMR 7207 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle Batiment de Géologie Case postale 48 43 rue Buffon F-75231 Paris cedex 05 FRANCE http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.