[CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species

    Cantino, Philip cantino at ohio.edu
    Sun May 13 15:18:36 EDT 2012 
    I prefer Kevin Padian's suggested mechanism.  The problem with sending all of our comments to the proposal authors is that some of the longer messages are no longer relevant.  For example, I don't think it would be productive to send Nico et al. the lengthy counterproposal that I sent to the listserv on Jan. 15.  Much of it was an attempt to find compromise wording I could live with for particular articles, but in many of these cases I prefer the current wording.  Since the CPN has already voted overwhelmingly not to accept the entire Cellinese et al. proposal, most of my suggestions in the Jan. 15 message are no longer relevant.  The same may also apply to some of the long messages sent by other CPN members.  I like Kevin P's suggestion that those of us who wish to may prepare a summary of our objections to the Cellinese et al. proposal.  Mine would draw from my previous comments but would be a lot briefer and more succinct.   If this mechanism is adopted, I would hope that everyone who was actively involved in the discussion would send something to the proposal authors, though it might either be their previous comments as originally submitted or an abbreviated summary, whatever that person prefers.

I do think that all comments from people who are not CPN members should be sent to the proposal authors.

Phil


Begin forwarded message:

From: "de Queiroz, Kevin" < deQueirozK at si.edu 
<mailto: deQueirozK at si.edu 
>>
Date: May 12, 2012 12:10:12 PM EDT
To: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>, Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: RE: [CPN] Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species

I don't think that it is appropriate for the proposers to be part of the CPN discussion that leads to votes (unless they are already members of the CPN).  If we take the ICZN as a model, after a proposal is submitted, it is published in the BZN and there is a chance for public comment, which is also published in the BZN.  I believe the proposers are allowed to be part of that discussion (point and counter-point).  However, when it comes to the vote of the Commission, the proposers are not involved unless they are already committee members.  If we were to follow that model, we could post on the ICZN website all of the comments (from both members and non-members of the CPN), both pro and con, provided that the authors consent.  I give my consent to post my comments.

Kevin

________________________________________
From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
> [ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
] On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [ cantino at ohio.edu 
]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:55 AM
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Subject: [CPN] Fwd:  Decision on proposal with respect to species

This seems like a fair request.  If the CPN agrees, I can easily add Brent, Nico and David to the listserv for the purpose of this discussion and then unsubscribe them after we are done discussing their proposal.  If we agree to this, though, I think Dave (as CPN chair) will need to be assertive about cutting off discussion of particular points if it becomes clear that the pros and cons of that point are being stated repeatedly by the same people on each side.  Otherwise, progress will slow to a snail's pace and everyone's time will be wasted.

I'm not sure how best to give the proposal authors access to the points that led to our initial decision.  This relates to the following in Dave's message yesterday:
"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."  The messages that Dave suggests are good choices, but I also suggest that we include my explanation of why I object strongly to permitting the conversion of specific epithets to clade names (i.e., the elimination of Art. 10.9); this is in a relatively short message that I sent to the CPN on January 11.  Other members of the CPN may also want to include points made in their messages too.   Perhaps each of us should choose particular points we would like to share with the authors of the proposal, and in addition let's send them David Hillis' comments.

Phil


Begin forwarded message:

From: Brent Mishler < bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
<mailto: bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] Decision on proposal with respect to species
Date: May 12, 2012 12:19:50 AM EDT
To: David Tank < dtank at uidaho.edu 
<mailto: dtank at uidaho.edu 
>>
Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>, David Baum < dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu 
<mailto: dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu 
>>, Nico Cellinese < ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
<mailto: ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
>>

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the news; it is better to hear it directly.  I know there is not a lot of precedent for CPN procedure; I think we were the first "outside" proposal you had to deal with.  So I'd like to suggest a procedural improvement: at some point it would be fair for us to have a chance to reply to points made by CPN members.  So far it has been like a debate where only one side is allowed to actually debate.  The people with vested interest in the current treatment of species in the Phylocode, Kevin and Phil, are in the debate and none of the three of us are.

Just a thought,

Best,

Brent


On May 11, 2012, at 7:17 PM, David Tank wrote:

Dear Nico, Brent, and David,

Thank you for your thoughtful proposal for changes to the PhyloCode with respect to species.  The CPN has voted to reject the proposal as an entire entity but also decided to continue discussion to determine if there are elements of your proposal that we would like to incorporate in the next revision of the draft code.  I apologize on behalf of the CPN for not having informed you promptly about the initial vote, an oversight that was related to the fact that we are still discussing elements of the proposal and thus view the decision-making process as still in progress.  At the conclusion of this discussion, we will inform you of the outcome as well as posting the CPN decision on the news section of the ISPN website.

All the 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/ 
**********************************************************
Brent D. Mishler
    Professor, Department of Integrative Biology
    Director, University and Jepson Herbaria
    University of California, Berkeley
 Mailing address:
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
    UNIVERSITY AND JEPSON HERBARIA
    1001 VALLEY LIFE SCIENCES BLDG # 2465
    BERKELEY, CA  94720-2465  USA
 Office: 4164 VLSB
 Phone:  (510) 642-6810 [office and lab]
 FAX:    (510) 643-5390
 E-mail: bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
<mailto: bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
>
 WWW: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/people/mishler.html 
**********************************************************

_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120513/f4695002/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: