[CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal

    Michel Laurin michel.laurin at upmc.fr
    Fri May 11 15:54:40 EDT 2012 
    Hi Dave (and all others),

     What you propose is fine by me.

     Cheers,

     Michel

On 11/05/12 21:30, David Tank wrote:
> Hi All, 
>  
> It's been brought to my attention that the results of the vote on the 
> CMB proposal have been made public: 
>  http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/2012/05/phylocode-will-not-be-amended.html 
 
>  
>  
> Clearly community discussion is what we wanted all along, but the 
> unfortunate thing is that the authors of the proposal found out about 
> the results of the vote not from us, but through the grapevine via 
> this blog, and they are not too happy about it. 
>  
> I feel that it is our responsibility to communicate directly with the 
> authors to let them know where we are in this process and give them 
> some idea of the discussion that took place.  Something along the 
> lines of: 
>  
> Thank you for your thoughtful proposal for changes to the PhyloCode, 
> with respect to species.  The CPN has voted to reject this proposal, 
> however, with that decision, the committee also decided to continue 
> discussion of the proposal to identify if there are elements of the 
> proposal we would like to consider as revisions of the current draft 
> code.  That discussion is still ongoing, and we will make you and the 
> rest of the society aware of these changes through the news section of 
> the ISPN website. 
>  
> Please feel free to edit - add, delete, etc. - I want this 
> communication with the authors of the proposal to come from the CPN, 
> not just me, so I appreciate your input.  Also, I wonder if we should 
> post several of the responses and or snippets of the discussion for 
> the authors and rest of the society to see?  For example, I feel that 
> Dick Olmstead's review that he shared with the committee, David 
> Hillis' comments, and Kevin's response do a very good job of 
> articulating the position of the CPN, and it seems like the authors 
> and the society should be aware of these.  Any thoughts? 
>  
> Best, 
> Dave 
>  
> 
     
> David C. Tank 
> Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium 
> University of Idaho 
> 208.885.7033 
>  dtank at uidaho.edu 
<mailto: dtank at uidaho.edu 
> 
>  http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ 
 
>  
> On May 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Mike Keesey wrote: 
>  
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
 
>> <mailto: 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120511/3f395840/attachment-0001.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: