[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 ]

I'm sorry for the delay.

> 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? 
Of course -- when the question is whether the specimen is similar enough to be assigned to a named species, particularly in contexts (paleontology in other words) where species tend to be morphospecies of some kind. The question "should I refer this new specimen to the species it's most similar to, or should I name a new species for it?" has posed itself to thousands of people countless times. I'll likely have my first encounter with it over the next few weeks.

• 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 ]