[CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal

• Previous message: [CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear colleagues,

     I support Phil's suggestions, at least items 3 and 4 (I did not 
have time to read up on the others).

     Best wishes,

     Michel

On 27/08/12 17:19, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN, 
>  
> Thank you, Dave, for returning the CPN to the task at hand.  Now that 
> everyone has presumably returned from fieldwork and vacations, I hope 
> we can bring this matter quickly to a conclusion. 
>  
> Regarding item 2 in your list, I suggest that we broaden it to Art. 21 
> in general rather than David M's specific recommendations, because 
> other people may have additional changes to recommend in this article. 
>  
> In addition, I would like the CPN to consider adopting the following 
> changes that were proposed by (or at least related to the proposals 
> of) CBM: 
> 1) Modify the Preamble to the wording suggested by CPN 
> 2) Delete Note 3.1.1 
> 3) Reword Art. 9.7 (but the modification I prefer differs from that 
> recommended by CBM); see below. 
> 4) Reword Rec. 9c (but the modification I prefer differs from that 
> recommended by CBM); see below. 
> 5) Delete Rec. 11.4B (because I don't think this code should recommend 
> what people do under the rank-based codes.  What the recommendation 
> suggests is simply sensible nomenclatural practice and therefore 
> likely to be done anyway). 
>  
> Regarding my item 3 (Art. 9.7), which concerns the required statement 
> about the hypothesized composition of the named clade, I want to 
> retain the option of citing species (contrary to CBM) but add a 
> requirement that _if specimens are cited in the composition 
> statement_ (as may be done by authors who agree with CBM's 
> perspective), then the author must also include the name of a species 
> or clade (less inclusive than the one whose composition is being 
> described) to which the specimen can be referred, unless the clade 
> whose composition is being described does not contain any named 
> species or subclades.  My objective here is to avoid the use of 
> specimens _alone_ to describe the composition of clades larger than 
> those approximating species.  CBM should not oppose this addition 
> because it leaves open the citation of subclades rather than species, 
> which is what most people would do anyway, regardless of their views 
> about species. 
>  
> Regarding my item 4 (Rec. 9c), I would like to reword the 
> recommendation slightly to include referral of less inclusive clades 
> as well as specimens.  It would read: In order to facilitate the 
> referral of *less inclusive clades, as well as* species *and 
> specimens* that are not specifiers of the clade name, the protologue 
> should include a description, diagnosis, or list of synapomorphies. 
> [Proposed additions are in boldface.] 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 12:20 PM, David Tank wrote: 
>  
>> Dear CPN - 
>>  
>> After too long of a lag, we need to come back to the 'CBM species 
>> proposal' and wrap this up.  The Cellinese et al. Systematic Biology 
>> paper is now published (Syst Biol 61(5):885-891). 
>>  
>> When we last left this, there were only two changes that the CPN 
>> agreed to consider: 
>>  
>> 1) Broadening the definition of species 
>> 2) David M's recommended changes to Art. 21 
>>  
>> Are these the only items that we would like to consider changing 
>> based on the 'species proposal'?  Because there has been such a long 
>> pause in this discussion, I want to give a final opportunity for the 
>> CPN to consider other categories of changes before specific 
>> wording/changes are made. 
>>  
>> Therefore, what I would like from you is a list of general categories 
>> of changes that you would like to see incorporated (an example being 
>> the suggestion to make the definition of species more 
>> neutral/general).  General categories will be much easier to discuss 
>> rather than a list of specific proposed modifications to the wording 
>> of the PhyloCode. 
>>  
>> Please take the time to re-familiarize yourself with the proposal and 
>> respond with any general categories of changes by *Monday, September 3*. 
>>  
>> Once we agree on which points we are going to consider, we will then 
>> deal with the specific wording/additions to the PhyloCode before 
>> sharing them with the authors of the original proposal. 
>>  
>> Thanks much and best, 
>> Dave 
>>  
>> 
 
>> David C. Tank 
>> University of Idaho 
>>  dtank at uidaho.edu 
<mailto: dtank at uidaho.edu 
> 
>>  http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ 
 
>>  
>> 
 
>> 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://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120827/2057124d/attachment.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]