[CPN] please vote on deletion of Rec. 11.4B

    Brian Andres pterosaur at me.com
    Tue Sep 25 16:50:31 EDT 2012 
    NO=Retain Rec. 11.4B

	For pretty much the same reasons Frank delineates. Also the wording  
on the next set of proposed changes looks good, and so I have no  
further comments on those.

Best,
-Bri

On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:59 AM, 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 
> 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 
> 
>> Date: September 17, 2012 1:05:50 PM EDT 
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < 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, 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 
 
>  
> 
     
> 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/20120925/244645b5/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: