[CPN] Rec. 21.3A

• Previous message: [CPN] Rec. 21.3A
• Next message: [CPN] Rec. 21.3A
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

me too -- kp


> I vote yes.  seems simple enough. 
>  
> D 
>  
>  
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Cantino, Philip wrote: 
>  
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> On Monday, while voting on the changes in Art. 21, Andy raised "a minor 
>> quibble" about Rec. 21.3A (that part of his message is copied below). 
>> Kevin and I agree with him and have drafted the attached proposed change 
>> in Rec. 21.3A and Note 21.3A.1.  Because the text we used as a starting 
>> point already includes changes that were approved this week by the CPN 
>> (shown with boldface and strikethrough font), we used Track Changes to 
>> show the new proposed revisions.  In addition to adopting Andy's 
>> suggestion, we changed the symbol designating established clade names 
>> from the copyright symbol © to [P] for consistency with Rec. 6.1B, 
>> Example 1.  However, we used [nP] instead of [R], even though the latter 
>> is used in Rec. 6.1B Example 1 to indicate names governed by rank-based 
>> codes, because in Rec. 21.3A, [nP] signifies something different--it 
>> indicates that the name is not an established clade name, regardless 
>> whether it is governed by the rank-based codes. 
>>  
>> If the CPN approves these revisions, we will make corresponding changes 
>> throughout Art. 21 in the symbols used to indicate whether or not a name 
>> is an established clade name. 
>>  
>> Although I generally prefer that the CPN address one issue at a time, 
>> this one seems sufficiently simple, and hopefully uncontroversial, that 
>> I am going to ask for discussion (if any) on it at the same time as you 
>> are considering the deletion of Note 13.2.2, which I sent you yesterday. 
>>  
>> If discussion is minimal or seems to have ended, I will call for a vote 
>> on both questions next Tuesday. 
>>  
>> Regards, 
>> Phil 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Frank Anderson wrote: 
>>  
>>> Minor quibble -- I find it a bit odd that after Recommendation 21.3A, 
>>> we give two examples -- one in which we use (C) to indicate a name is 
>>> an established clade name (while leaving the (C) off means it isn't 
>>> established) or (R) to indicate that is not an established clade name 
>>> (while leaving the (R) off means that it is established) -- but then 
>>> add a note to the effect that it might be better to use both (C) and 
>>> (R), just to avoid ambiguity.  Why not just have one example in which 
>>> both (C) and (R) are used as described in Examples 1 and 2 (to denote 
>>> that something is or is not an established clade name, respectively) 
>>> and have a note that says something to the effect of "But if you really 
>>> want to just denote one type of name with a symbol and denote the other 
>>> type by just not using that symbol, you can do that, too".  It seems we 
>>> have a clear preference here to use both (C) and (R) (or some 
>>> equivalent convention)...why not use that as the example? 
>>>  
>>> Cheers, 
>>> Andy 
>>  
>> <Rec 21.3A.doc>_______________________________________________ 
>> CPN mailing list 
>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
> Richard Olmstead 
> Professor of Biology and Herbarium Curator, Burke Museum 
> Department of Biology 
> Box 355325 
> University of Washington 
> Seattle, WA 98195 
>  
> office: 423 Hitchcock Hall 
> phone: 206-543-8850 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
 
> 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] Rec. 21.3A
• Next message: [CPN] Rec. 21.3A
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]