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
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.