[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

    Michel Laurin michel.laurin at upmc.fr
    Fri Mar 29 03:58:19 EDT 2013 
    Hi,

     I agree with both points 1 and 2 below.

     Michel

On 28/03/13 21:35, Cantino, Philip 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 
 
>  
>  
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
-- 
Michel Laurin
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/20130329/eac54f03/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: