[CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal

• Previous message: [CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I agree too.

     Michel

On 10/05/12 23:54, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> I agree that Mike's proposed punctuation change makes the definition easier to read. 
>  
> Thank you for alerting us about the changes in the names of these codes and the new publication on biological nomenclature. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
> On May 9, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Mike Keesey wrote: 
>  
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Cantino, Philip< cantino at ohio.edu 
>  wrote: 
>>> Here is a revised definition of "species" that I proposed for the glossary 
>>> in January, incorporating a change that Michel recommended on an earlier 
>>> draft I sent to the CPN: 
>>>  
>>> species.  A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a kind of 
>>> biological entity that may or may not be different from a clade or simply as 
>>> a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature.  This code does not endorse 
>>> any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, but it 
>>> uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer to taxa that 
>>> are used as specifiers in definitions of clade names.  Article 21 provides 
>>> guidelines for the use of species names governed by the rank-based codes in 
>>> conjunction with clade names governed by this code. 
>> I like this definition. The first sentence is a bit difficult to read, 
>> though. Perhaps: "A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as 
>> a kind of biological entity (which may or may not be different from a 
>> clade) or as a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature." 
>>  
>> While we're on the subject of updating the code, I note that some of 
>> the other codes have changed their names since the last draft of the 
>> PhyloCode was created. The International Code of Botanical 
>> Nomenclature (or the Botanical Code) is now the International Code of 
>> Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) and the International 
>> Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (or the Bacteriological Code) is now 
>> the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP). These 
>> are trivial updates that should be included in the next draft. 
>>  
>> This was published yesterday by the International Committee on Bionomenclature: 
>>  
>> David&  al. (2012). Biological nomenclature terms for facilitating 
>> communication in the naming of organisms. ZooKeys 192:67–72. 
>>  http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.192.3347 
 
>>  
>> It's basically an updated version of PhyloCode's Appendix C (itself 
>> based on a BioCode appendix, IIRC). Happy to see it includes the 
>> PhyloCode! I'd say the next draft should probably use it verbatim 
>> (except with the PhyloCode column first, an additional row for 
>> "converted" nomenclatural status, and perhaps any rows where 
>> PhyloCode's entry is "[none]" omitted). 
>> -- 
>> T. Michael Keesey 
>>  http://tmkeesey.net/ 
 
>>  
>> 
 
>> 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 
 
>  
-- 
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 

• Previous message: [CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]