[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 ]

Kevin and I quickly consulted, and we agree with both of these minor changes proposed by David M.  I have gone ahead and made the changes under the assumption that the rest of the majority of the CPN would concur, but if anyone objects, please let me know; I will interpret lack of response as acceptance.  With this change, Art. 11.8 now reads:  When a specimen that is not a type is used as a specifier in a phylogenetic definition, the institution or collection in which the specifier is conserved must be identified, as well as the collection number or other information needed to identity the specimen unambiguously.

Phil


On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:06 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:

Yes to both.

Just... "descendents" near the end of the new Art. 11.7 should probably be spelled "descendants"; at the end of what will be 11.8, I propose replacing "establish the identity of the specimen" by "unambiguously identify the specimen" or "identify the specimen unambiguously", because that sounds clearer to me. Sorry I didn't see this earlier.
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130411/6b663c51/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 ]