[CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1

• Previous message: [CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1
• Next message: [CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This note is fine by me.

     Michel

On 08/02/13 20:48, Cantino, Philip wrote:
>  
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> Although the chairmanship of this committee isn't settled yet, I will 
> continue for now as de facto chairperson and send you the next item 
> for discussion.  I hope everyone--and particularly the three new 
> members--had a chance to read the chronology I sent last Friday.  No 
> one contacted me with any questions, which I suppose is good news 
> (though it could just mean that no one read it). 
>  
> At the end of the chronology was a list of three items the CPN still 
> needs to consider before we are done with the revisions that were 
> spurred by the CBM proposal regarding species.  Here is the first of them. 
>  
> The addition of a new Note 11.7.1 was stimulated by a point made by 
> David Marjanovic in January, when we were discussing the whole set of 
> changes on Article 11.  Bear in mind that the article this refers to 
> is not Art. 11.7 on the current (online) version of the code (version 
> 4c), but rather the new Art. 11.7 that the CPN approved on January 22. 
> Both the newly approved Art. 11.7 and the proposed Note 11.7.1 are 
> included in the attached document. 
>  
> 
 
>  
> Here is the relevant email exchange on the listserv concerning Article 
> 11.7, and ending with a suggestion that a new note is needed: 
>  
> Marjanovic: 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? 
>  
> Cantino: When faced with the situation David describes, many (perhaps 
> most) systematists who wanted to name a clade with the new specimen as 
> a specifier would either assign it to the previously named species or 
> name a new species with that specimen as a type.  In either case, the 
> type would be used as a specifier.  If the researcher thinks the 
> specimen does not belong to any previously described species but there 
> is some reason not to describe a new species based on it, then this is 
> one of the situations where it would be acceptable to use a non-type 
> as a specifier.  In other words, the rule is working appropriately in 
> this situation. 
>  
> Marjanovic: So it's up to the author of the clade name, and their 
> decision can't be challenged later on the grounds that the specifier 
> is deemed (by the challenger) to belong to a named species? If so, 
> that's fine, but it should be spelled out in a note. 
>  
>  
> 
 
>  
> Let's give ourselves a week to think about this.  If you have 
> comments, please send them to the listserv < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>.  If there is no discussion, I'll call 
> for a vote next Friday (unless someone else agrees to chair the CPN, 
> in which case the timing of the discussion and vote will pass to him 
> or her). 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
-- 
UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130210/457470f2/attachment.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1
• Next message: [CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]