[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
Kevin Padian kpadian at berkeley.eduThu Mar 28 21:36:34 EDT 2013
- Previous message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
- Next message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I agree with Brian. I think people should be scholars and learn how to do classical names the right way. It's not rocket science. We're already giving them a ton of variably useful instructions. -- kp > If no one feels that more discussion is needed.. > > 1) Yes > 2) No, but I would vote for the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its > Example 1 in version two. I would rather have stability of species names > at the risk of transexual names. > > Best, > Ⓑ > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:35 PM, "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu > wrote: > >> >> Dear CPN members, >> >> I am attaching a third revision of the proposed changes in Art. 21. The >> two new changes, which were suggested by Jim Doyle, are highlighted in >> green. >> >> I think the only remaining disagreement concerns Note 21A.1 and its >> Example 1. The proposed wording discourages changing the ending of a >> uninomen to agree in gender or number with a clade name it is combined >> with if that clade name is not also the name of a genus under the >> appropriate rank-based code. (Although David M. says that the proposed >> wording "forbids" changing the ending of a uninomen in this situation, >> the Note reads more like a recommendation.) >> >> I am going to call for a vote now, although if anyone feels that more >> discussion is needed, please say so. >> >> I am asking that everyone vote on two questions: >> 1) Do you approve the proposed changes to Art. 21, without consideration >> of Note 21A.1 and its Example 1? >> 2) Do you approve of the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its Example >> 1? >> >> Please send your responses to the listserv. Let's give ourselves until >> the end of the day on Monday (April 1) to vote. >> >> Regards, >> Phil >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Michel Laurin wrote: >> >> > I agree with Kevin and Phil on this point. Besides, the number of >> people >> > learning Latin is steadily decreasing, right? So soon, very few people >> > would be able to use Latin grammar (at least, without taking hours to >> > check rules, roots, endings, and the like). >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Michel >> > >> > On 27/03/13 21:44, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote: >> >> Remember also that these combinations of species uninomina with with >> clade names are not formal "new combinations" as in the rank-based >> codes. Using one does not constitute a nomenclatural act. They are >> simply, as some people have called them, "clade addresses"--that is, >> ways of indicating clades to which the species in question belongs. >> In this context, it makes no sense to change the spelling of the >> species uninomen to agree (in gender and/or number) with its "clade >> address", because the uninomen is not an adjective or a possessive >> modifying the clade name. Instead, as indicated in Art. 21, it is >> being treated "as a name in its own right." In addition, one can >> list as many of these "clade addresses" as one wishes, and it will >> often be impossible for the uninomen to agree with all of them. >> >> >> >> Kevin >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu ] >> On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [ cantino at ohio.edu ] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:50 PM >> >> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature >> >> Subject: Re: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21 >> >> >> >> David, I disagree with you on this point. I think that pluralizing >> uninomina to agree with plural clade names will create unnecessary >> confusion for readers. To me, the main reason for changing the >> gender to match a clade name that is also a genus name is to avoid >> unnecessary divergence from the way users of the rank-based code are >> spelling combinations involving the same pair of names. >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:11 PM, David Marjanovic wrote: >> >> >> >>>> I think you are misinterpreting Note 21A.1. The note begins "When >> a >> >>>> species uninomen is combined with a clade name that is not also a >> >>>> genus..." This is the only situation the Note refers to in saying >> >>>> that the ending of the uninomen should not be changed to agree in >> >>>> gender or number. If a uninomen is combined with the name of a >> clade >> >>>> that is also a genus, the last sentence in the Note doesn't apply. >> >>>> [...] Would adding that qualification resolve the >> >>>> problem you are seeing in the current wording? >> >>> No. I think agreement with non-genus names should be optional as >> well; >> >>> according to the new Note 21A.1, it is outright forbidden. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Michel Laurin >> > UMR 7207 >> > Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle >> > Bâtiment de Géologie >> > Case postale 48 >> > 43 rue Buffon >> > F-75231 Paris cedex 05 >> > FRANCE >> > http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CPN mailing list >> > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu >> > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn >> >> <Art 21 proposed changes >> vers.3.doc>_______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Kevin Padian Department of Integrative Biology & Museum of Paleontology University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 510-642-7434 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php
- Previous message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
- Next message: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list