[CPN] changes based on CBM proposal--the next step

    David Tank dtank at uidaho.edu
    Thu Sep 20 20:45:37 EDT 2012 
    I wanted to send an email to note that I agree with the procedure that Phil has laid out.  Phil, Thanks for taking the initiative on this.

Best,
Dave
_________________________________
David C. Tank
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium
University of Idaho
208.885.7033 dtank at uidaho.edu 
 http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ 
On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Cantino, Philip wrote:

> It has been a week since I sent the message copied below, in which I proposed a process to complete the CPN discussion of the species proposal.  Only two responses were sent to this listserve (from Michel and David M), both of which were supportive, so I am going to assume that no one is opposed to this procedure. 
>  
> As part of the suggested process, I asked that anyone who disagrees with the spirit of changes 1-6 listed below send a message to the listserve by Sept. 16 (yesterday).  No messages were received, so I am concluding that everyone supports these first 6 changes in principle (though you will still have the opportunity to vote on specific wording).   I will therefore take the next step of developing specific wordings for these changes in consultation with Kevin.  Some of them are quite simple, so I expect to be able to send those to you this week.  The revamping of Art. 21 will take more time, so I will leave that to last and work on it while the CPN is discussing and voting on the others. 
>  
> Item #7 (deletion of Rec. 11.4B) is not unanimously supported by the CPN, so we will need to discuss and vote on that one.  I suggest that we start that discussion immediately because it can be done this week while I am working with Kevin to recommend wording on the other changes. 
>  
> Art. 11.4 and its two recommendations read as follows: 
> 11.4. When a type specimen is used as a specifier, the species name that it typifies and the author(s) and publication year of that species name must be cited. 
> Recommendation 11.4A. The use of specimens that are not types as specifiers is strongly discouraged. This should be done only under the following two circumstances: 1) if the specimen that one would like to use as a specifier cannot be referred to a named species, so that there is no type specimen that could be used instead; or 2) if the clade to be named is within a species. 
> Recommendation 11.4B. If a specimen that is not a type is used as a specifier in the first situation described in Rec. 11.4A,  and a species that includes this specimen is subsequently named under the appropriate rank-based code, this specimen should be chosen as the type of the species name. 
>  
> Here are the two points of view about Rec. 11.4B that have been expressed so far: 
> 1) I would like to delete Rec. 11.4B because I don't think the PhyloCode should recommend what people to under the rank-based codes.  What Rec. 11.4B recommends is simply sensible nomenclatural practice and therefore likely to be done anyway. 
> 2) David M. disagreed, stating, "however, sometimes it's a good idea to spell out the obvious. A Recommendation is just a recommendation; it is by definition unenforceable -- we even say, in item 5 of the Preamble, that other people shouldn't try to enforce Recommendations for us: "editors and reviewers should not require that they be followed"." 
>  
> If anyone would like to add to this discussion (beyond simply agreeing with one viewpoint or the other), please do so by Friday.  If no one disagrees with the timing I am suggesting, I will ask the committee to vote on the deletion of Rec. 11.4B next Monday. 
>  
> I hope no one feels that I am out of place in suggesting the timing for the discussion and the vote (since I am just a member of the committee, not the chairman).  If you would like to propose an alternative procedure or timing, please say so.  I am simply trying to facilitate reaching a conclusion so that we can report back to the authors of the proposal and move on to other matters that have been brought up in the meanwhile. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
>> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>> Date: September 10, 2012 2:33:09 PM EDT 
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>> Subject: [CPN] Fwd: CPN action needed on species proposal 
>>  
>>>  
>>> I think the plan was to send the authors our comments after we agree on wording for the modifications of the code that stemmed from the CBM proposal (see the last paragraph in Dave Tank's Aug. 25 message).  I hope we can move this along quickly now.  Dave's deadline for responding with general categories of changes was Sept. 3.  I suggest that we can finish with this matter most quickly by proceeding as follows: 
>>> 1) Give committee members one week to speak up if any of us disagrees that a certain change or kind of change (not the specific wording) would be worthwhile. 
>>> 2) For those changes where there is no disagreement, I am willing to take the lead in framing specific wording in consultation with Kevin.  Then we will submit our suggested wording to the CPN for discussion, possible modification, and a vote.  These should probably be discussed and voted on one by one, as Kevin Padian suggested, but let's try to limit ourselves to no more than a week for each, preferably less, as I don't think most of them will be controversial. 
>>> 3) For the suggested categories of change where there is disagreement within the CPN, why don't we give ourselves a few days to express our views and then vote on whether to turn them over to me and Kevin to draft wording or leave them as currently worded in the code.  This can be done simultaneously with step 2 since step 2 does not involve the whole CPN. 
>>>  
>>> If anyone has an alternative idea of how to proceed, please say so soon; let's keep things moving along. 
>>>  
>>> I am aware of the following kinds of changes that have been proposed: 
>>> 1) Broadening the definition of species in the glossary and elsewhere in the code. 
>>> 2) Simplify and improve Art. 21, as proposed by David M. and others. 
>>> 3) Modify the Preamble along the lines suggested by CBM. 
>>> 4) Delete Note 3.1.1 and consider merging Note 3.1.2 with Art. 3.1 
>>> 5) Reword Art. 9.7 (see my Aug. 27 message for details) 
>>> 6) Reword Rec. 9c (see my Aug. 27 message for details) 
>>> 7) Delete Rec. 11.4B 
>>>  
>>> Did I miss any? 
>>>  
>>> The only one of these for which disagreement has been expressed to date is number 7, which David M. disagrees with.  How about items 1 through 6?  Does anyone disagree that it is worthwhile for Kevin and me to draw up specific wording on these for the CPN to consider?  I suggest that we set ourselves a deadline of Sunday, Sept. 16 for CPN members who disagree with any of these changes to say so.   Is this procedure OK with everyone?  It would be good to hear from at least Dave, as CPN chair, but I hope everyone will feel free to suggest an alternative way to proceed if you are uncomfortable with my suggestions. 
>>>  
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>>  
>>  
>> 
     
>> 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 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120920/bb7cdad1/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: