[CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A

• Previous message: [CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
• Next message: [CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hello Phil,

> There was no discussion of either of the code modifications I sent 
> you last week, so I am now calling for a vote.  The rationale for 
> the proposed deletion of Note 13.2.2 was presented in my April 2 
> message, copied below.  The proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 
> and Note 21.3A.1 were sent to you April 3 and are attached to this 
> message as well. 
>  
> Please send your votes to the listserv on the following questions: 
> 1) Should Note 13.2.2 be deleted? 
Yes

> 2) Should the proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 and Note 
> 21.3A.1 be adopted? 
Yes (assuming "P" stands for "PhyloCode" or "Phylogenetic" - if I'm 
confused about this, there may be a problem)

Jim

> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
>> From: "Cantino, Philip" <<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
> cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>>  
>> Date: April 2, 2013 10:50:10 AM EDT 
>>  
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
>> <<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>  
>> Subject: Proposed deletion of Note 13.2.2 
>>  
>>  
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> There is still another item of business that relates to species. 
>> This is something we overlooked in our discussion of the CBM 
>> proposal; it concerns Note 13.2.2. 
>>  
>> Art. 13.2 and Note 13.2.2 currently read: 
>>  
>> 13.2. Phylogenetic definitions are considered to be different if 
>> either: 1) they are of the same kind (e.g., node-based, 
>> branch-based, etc.) but cite different specifiers and/or have 
>> different restrictions specified in their qualifying clauses (if 
>> any), or 2) they are of a different kind. 
>>  
>> Note 13.2.2.  A species and its type specimen are considered to be 
>> the same specifier (see Note 11.1.1). 
>>  
>>  
>> Note 11.1.1, which is referred to in Note 13.2.2, was changed by 
>> CPN vote in January (see the attached changes in Art. 11 that were 
>> approved by the CPN).  Before these changes were approved, Note 
>> 11.1.1 read as follows  (i.e., in version 4c, currently still 
>> online): "When a species is cited as a specifier, the implicit 
>> specifier is the type of that species name (if a type has been 
>> designated) under the appropriate rank-based code." 
>>  
>> The concept of an implicit specifier was removed from the code when 
>> the CPN revised Art. 11.  With the changes that have been approved 
>> in Art. 11, a definition that uses a species name as a specifier 
>> and another definition that uses the type specimen of that species 
>> would be considered different under Art. 13.2 because they have 
>> different specifiers.  An indication that they are truly different 
>> is that the consequences of their use differ under certain 
>> situations discussed in new Arts. 11.4 and 11.6.   Kevin and I are 
>> therefore recommending that Note 13.2.2 be deleted. 
>>  
>> Let's give ourselves until Monday to discuss this.  If the 
>> discussion appears to have ended by then, I will call for a vote 
>> next Tuesday. 
>>  
>> Regards, 
>> Phil 
-- 
James A. Doyle
Department of Evolution and Ecology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616, USA
Telephone:  1-530-752-7591; fax:  1-530-752-1449
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130409/54af32f2/attachment.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
• Next message: [CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]