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

Brian Andres pterosaur at me.com
Thu Apr 11 15:25:35 EDT 2013
Accepted.

Ⓑ

On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

> 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 >> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > >
> CPN mailing list > 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/f4e28f1e/attachment.html


More information about the CPN mailing list
View Site in Mobile | Classic
Share by: