I vote against the deletion. I still think that someday, the ISPN will produce a code for species, and having some material to start such a code in our PhyloCode cannot hurt. Cheers, Michel On 24/09/12 16:59, Cantino, Philip wrote: > Dear CPN members, > > I am following up on my Sept. 17 message (copied below). Since no one > commented further on the question whether Art. 11.4 should be deleted, > I am calling for a vote. Please send your vote to this listserv > < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> by FRIDAY > (Sept. 28). > YES=Delete Rec. 11.4B > NO=Retain Rec. 11.4B > >> *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. * > * > * > > Pro and Con arguments, respectively: >> 1) The PhyloCode should not recommend that specific actions be taken >> under the rank-based codes. What Rec. 11.4B recommends is simply >> sensible nomenclatural practice and therefore likely to be done anyway. >> 2) 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". > > > Thank you. > > Phil > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >> >> *Date: *September 17, 2012 1:05:50 PM EDT >> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> >> *Subject: **[CPN] changes based on CBM proposal--the next step* >> >> 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 >> < http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art11.html#rec11.4a >, 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 <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >> >>> *Date: *September 10, 2012 2:33:09 PM EDT >>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >>> <mailto: 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 <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > >>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn >> >>
>> 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/20120924/d2c01847/attachment-0001.html
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.