[CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals

• Previous message: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals
• Next message: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I do not favor Mike's proposed revision (of the definition of "taxon") for the following reason:  some people view clades/higher taxa not as monophyletic groups of organisms but as monophyletic groups of species.  Thus, saying that a taxon is a group of organisms is like saying that a family is a group of cells, which is true in a sense but emphasizes the wrong level of organization.  The proposed wording "a group of organisms or species" is designed to be neutral with respect to the question of whether a taxon is a monophyletic group or organisms or a monophyletic group of species, which is the reason that it has to mention both.

Kevin

________________________________________
From: Cantino, Philip [ cantino at ohio.edu 
]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:57 AM
To: de Queiroz, Kevin
Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Subject: Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals

Kevin,
What do you think of Mike Keesey's suggestion?  It looks fine to me.
Phil

On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Mike Keesey wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote: 
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> It has taken a couple of weeks, but Kevin and I have finally worked through 
>> David's suggestions, some of which we have led to changes in the attached 
>> revision of the proposals I initially sent you on Sept. 24.  I have inserted 
>> our responses below after each of David's comments. 
>>  
>> I would like to take a vote on this set of changes soon (i.e., the set of 
>> proposals I sent you on Sept. 24 plus the modifications contained here).  If 
>> David or anyone else has further comments, please send them to the listserv 
>> by the end of the end of the day on Sunday (Oct. 28).  If there is no 
>> further discussion calling for more changes, I think we could go ahead and 
>> vote on these starting on Monday.  If anyone feels this is not sufficient 
>> time to review the changes, please let me know and we can delay the vote by 
>> a few days. 
>  
> Thanks for putting this together, Kevin and Phil. 
>  
> The changes look good to me. There is one minor tweak I would suggest 
> in the Glossary: 
>  
> CURRENT: 
> taxon (taxa). A taxonomic group of organisms. In this code, taxa may 
> be clades or species, but only clade names are governed by this code. 
>  
> PROPOSED REVISION: 
> taxon (taxa). A group of organisms or species considered a potential 
> recipient of a scientific name. Taxa may be clades or species, but 
> only clade names are governed by this code. 
>  
> Definitely an improvement, but I don't think it's necessary to 
> explicitly mention species here. I suggest this wording: 
>  
> taxon (taxa). A group of organisms considered a potential recipient of 
> a scientific name. This code only governs the names of monophyletic 
> taxa (clades). 
>  
>  
> T. Michael Keesey 
>  http://tmkeesey.net/ 
 
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 

• Previous message: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals
• Next message: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]