[CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Phil,

I also approve the proposed changes.

All the best for the New Year!

Walter


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> It would be helpful if everyone would vote this week.  There has been 
> plenty of time to read the revisions (sent to you on Jan. 2). 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:25 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote: 
>  
> > Perhaps this goes without saying given that I am one of the people 
> proposing the changes, but I vote to approve the proposed revisions. 
> > 
> > Kevin 
> > 
> > From: <Cantino>, Phil Cantino < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
 
> >> 
> > Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:19 PM 
> > To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> > Subject: [CPN] Fwd: Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE 
> > 
> > In the absence of a reply from David or comments from anyone else, I 
> think it is time to vote on this. 
> > 
> > Unless someone objects by tomorrow and asks for more discussion, please 
> start voting tomorrow on the proposed revisions of Article 11 that I sent 
> to the CPN on January 2. 
> > 
> > Phil 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Begin forwarded message: 
> > 
> > From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
> > Date: January 7, 2013 9:29:56 AM EST 
> > To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> > Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11 
> > 
> > David, 
> > 
> > Can you elaborate, perhaps with an example, how the use of different 
> species criteria by different biologists would cause problems in the 
> context of this rule?  The objective of the rule is to prohibit the use of 
> non-type specimens as specifiers when a type could be used instead. 
> Differences in species criteria may certainly result in a particular 
> specimen being referred to different species by different people, but can 
> it result in a biologist concluding that the specimen can't be assigned to 
> any named species?  Note that the wording does not require that the 
> biologist who is using the specimen as a specifier be the person who named 
> the species or even that he/she accept the premise that species exist. 
> > 
> > I said I would initiate the vote today if no one objected to the 
> timeline, but I'll hold off doing so until we finish discussing the issue 
> David has raised. 
> > 
> > Did no one else have any comments on the proposed revisions that I sent 
> on January 2? 
> > 
> > Phil 
> > 
> > 
> > On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:55 AM, David Marjanovic wrote: 
> > 
> > These proposals are probably good enough in practice. The only possible 
> > exception is in the proposed Art. 11.7: whether a specimen "cannot be 
> > referred to a named species" will sometimes, perhaps often, depend on 
> > the species criteria. What do you all think? 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
 
>  
-- 
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/20130116/64c2b3fd/attachment.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]