[CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal

• Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Apart from causing yet another delay to the Companion Volume, and risking alienating contributing authors, it will also make phylogenetic definitions effectively unintelligible (i.e., a lot more work to interpret).

Kevin


On 2/6/12 10:50 AM, "Phil Cantino" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

Mike asked:

>  
> Another question I'd like to raise: what are the consequences for the 
> Companion Volume if this proposal is adopted? Would it require another 
> round of edits to remove the dependency on species? 
>  
Yes, if we are no longer able to use species as specifiers, every entry will have to be revised, including 81 that are already accepted.  Authors will have to replace each species specifier name with the identifying data for a specimen (e.g., collector, number or date).

Phil




_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 

• Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]