[CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species
Michel Laurin michel.laurin at upmc.frSun May 13 17:27:11 EDT 2012
- Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species
- Next message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I agree too. Michel On 13/05/12 21:18, Cantino, Philip wrote: > 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 >> > > > >
> 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/20120513/ef7c9862/attachment-0001.html
- Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species
- Next message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list