[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 ]

I vote yes to both.

Michel

Quoting "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
>:

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> 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? 
> 2) Should the proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 and Note 
> 21.3A.1 be adopted? 
>  
> Please vote by the end of the day on Friday (April 12). 
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
> Date: April 2, 2013 10:50:10 AM EDT 
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: 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 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

• 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 ]