[CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1

• Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1
• Next message: [CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi all,

     Personally, I am very happy that Phil is willing to continue to 
lead these discussions. He does it well, and I sure don't have the time 
to do it; my responsibilities keep piling up, and I will have to step 
down from some committees, I think (I don't necessarily mean some in the 
ISPN). So while I intend to continue serving the ISPN as best I can, I 
sure cannot take more responsibilities now.

     Cheers,

     Michel

On 21/02/13 19:53, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> In the absence of a flood of volunteers (or any, for that matter) to 
> chair this committee, I am going to continue acting as the de facto 
> chairman.  If anyone is uncomfortable with this or with any aspect of 
> how I am facilitating discussion and calling votes, please do say so. 
> The last thing I want to do is be heavy handed in running the CPN, 
> but I do want us to continue moving forward steadily.  There is a 
> backlog of issues to discuss and vote on. 
>  
> Although not everyone has voted on Note 11.7.1, the outcome is not in 
> doubt, so I think we should move on.  The vote is 9 in favor, 0 
> against, 1 declared abstention, and two members who did not respond to 
> the call for a vote.  The new Note will therefore be adopted. 
>  
> I will soon send the CPN the next items for consideration. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>> *Date: *February 19, 2013 2:44:17 PM EST 
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>> *Subject: **Fwd: Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1* 
>>  
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> Nine of you have now voted (in some cases the vote was sent just to 
>> me rather than to the listserv).  We have not yet heard from Jacques, 
>> Nico, and David Hillis.  If you plan to vote, please do so by the end 
>> of the day tomorrow so we can move on to other matters.  Thank you. 
>>  
>> Phil 
>>  
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>  
>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>>> *Date: *February 18, 2013 11:12:35 AM EST 
>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>> *Subject: **Fwd: Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1* 
>>>  
>>> Only two CPN members have voted on this since Friday--five total so 
>>> far.  I hope the other seven of you will vote soon.  There is 
>>> another item of business from our discussions last year that I'd 
>>> like to return to as soon as we complete this vote. 
>>>  
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>>  
>>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>> *Date: *February 15, 2013 11:08:31 AM EST 
>>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>> *Subject: **Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1* 
>>>>  
>>>> Dear CPN members, 
>>>>  
>>>> No one raised any concerns about the proposed new Note that I sent 
>>>> you a week ago (it is attached again to this message).  Michel and 
>>>> David M. have already said that the proposal is fine with them. 
>>>> Everyone else, please send your vote to approve or reject this new 
>>>> Note.   It would be helpful if you would vote by Monday. 
>>>>  
>>>> Thank you. 
>>>>  
>>>> Phil 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>>>  
>>>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>>> *Date: *February 8, 2013 2:48:09 PM EST 
>>>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
>>>>> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>>> *Bcc: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>>> *Subject: **proposed new Note 11.7.1* 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 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/20130221/1e23b883/attachment-0001.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1
• Next message: [CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]