[CPN] PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

    Walter Joyce walter.g.joyce at gmail.com
    Mon Nov 5 01:57:59 EST 2012 
    I also vote in favor of the proposed changes.

All the best,

Walter


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> Only five of us have voted on the set of proposed changes I sent the 
> listserv on Monday (attached again to this message).  I suggested today as 
> the deadline, but since less than half the committee has voted, this was 
> clearly insufficient time.  Please send your vote by next Tuesday (Nov. 6), 
> election day here in the U.S.  The following people have NOT yet voted: 
> Anderson, Andres, Gauthier, Joyce, Marjanovic, Olmstead, and Tank. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
> *Date: *October 29, 2012 11:19:46 AM EDT 
> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
> *Subject: **Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals* 
>  
> Folks, 
>  
> This is a worthwhile discussion that should definitely be continued, but I 
> realize now that I made a mistake in even including the glossary definition 
> of Taxon in this round of voting.  This was the one entry in David's Sept. 
> 29 set of comments that I suggested we postpone because it will take a 
> while to work through the many uses of the term "taxon" in the code.  In my 
> Oct. 24 message in which I inserted replies to David's comments, I noted 
> that we agreed to defer voting on the glossary definition of Taxon---but I 
> unfortunately forgot to remove this item from the list of changes that we 
> are voting on right now.  My apologies for the confusion! 
>  
> The attached document is identical to the one I sent you on Friday except 
> that I have deleted the glossary definition of Taxon as one that we are 
> voting on at this time.  I am not trying to suppress discussion of this 
> item.  We will return to this and related changes in the code (and also 
> revision of Art. 21), but after many months of discussion, I think it is 
> best that we vote on the several changes that no one has expressed 
> disagreement about. 
>  
> I suggested on Friday that we call a vote on this set of changes today if 
> there were no comments by Sunday and if no one objected to this schedule. 
> No one has objected to the schedule, and the only comments are on the 
> glossary definition of Taxon, so let's please vote on the other changes 
> (attached).  Please send your vote to this listserv by this Friday (Nov. 
> 2).  [If someone feels this is insufficient time in which to vote, please 
> say so, but we have been discussing the CBM proposal for months.] 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote: 
>  
> > When it comes to the definition of "clade", it's a bit over-simplified 
> to declare that other people are simply wrong.  They would argue that the 
> definition of "clade" is "an ancestral _species_ and all of its 
> descendants".  Moreover, some of them might also argue that it is useful to 
> distinguish terminologically between groups composed of an ancestor and all 
> of its descendants that conform (more or less) to a nested hierarchical 
> pattern (species, uniparental organisms) and those that do not (biparental 
> organisms). 
> > 
> > Kevin 
> > ________________________________________ 
> > From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
[ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
] On 
> Behalf Of David Marjanovic [ david.marjanovic at gmx.at 
] 
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:29 AM 
> > To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> > Subject: Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals 
> > 
> >> 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. 
> > 
> > They're wrong. "Clade" = "an ancestor and all its descendants", even if 
> > that's a small part of a species or partially overlaps with one or 
> > several species. The PhyloCode allows the naming of LITUs, as it should. 
> > 
> > Besides, under most species concepts, not only are "speciation" and 
> > "cladogenesis" not synonyms*, but neither is even a subset of the other; 
> > inevitably, then, clades will usually contain entire species and parts 
> > of other species under those species concepts. 
> > 
> > * Although lots of people, even in the primary literature, use 
> > "speciation" when they mean "cladogenesis". It's as if almost nobody 
> > even knew the latter term. 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
 
>  
>  
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
-- 
Dr. Walter Joyce
Institut für Geowissenschaften
University of Tübingen
Sigwartstr. 10
72070 Tübingen
+49 (0) 7071 - 2978930 walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de 
 http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/arbeitsgruppen/palaeobiologie/biogeologie/people/dr-walter-g-joyce.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20121105/1ed3333f/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: