[CPN] CPN response to your proposal

    Cellinese,Nico ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu
    Wed Apr 24 09:05:36 EDT 2013 
    Dear All,

I just wanted to second David's sentiment and really hope that in future we will better recognize the need and clear benefits of a more radical approach toward species nomenclature in a phylogenetic framework. I also appreciate some of the recent compromises but I can't help feeling the overall disappointment.

Yours,
Nico


On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Cantino, Philip wrote:

Dear CPN members:

I am forwarding a message from David Baum regarding the CPN decisions on the proposal that he co-authored with Nico and Brent Mishler.

Regards,
Phil



Begin forwarded message:

From: David Baum < dbaum at wisc.edu 
<mailto: dbaum at wisc.edu 
>>
Date: April 23, 2013 11:17:21 PM EDT
To: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Cc: Nico Cellinese < ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
<mailto: ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
>>, Brent Mishler < bmishler at berkeley.edu 
<mailto: bmishler at berkeley.edu 
>>
Subject: Re: CPN response to your proposal

Hi Phil,

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.  While I am obviously disappointed that our proposal was rejected, there are some positive changes.  For example, I am happy that it is more explicitly allowable to name clades at or below the species rank ("When defining the names of low-level clades that coincide with or overlap the boundaries of species").  It is too bad that you retained the prohibition on using a species epithet as a clade name and stuck to your guns on homonymy, but I am sure that you and other members of the committee thought carefully about our proposal and arrived at the decision that you honestly believe to be most in keeping with the principles of phylogenetic nomenclature. I thank you for that, even though I remain unconvinced that this approach will ultimately yield the best outcome for phylogenetic nomenclature.

Best wishes,

Sincerely,

David







On Apr 16, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Cantino, Philip wrote:

Dear Nico, David and Brent,

The CPN has finally finished addressing the proposal that you sent us in October, 2011.  I apologize for the length of time it took us to do so.  This was due in part to our having gotten off to a slow start, but it was also due to the complexity of your proposal, which really consisted of a great many separate rule changes united by a central theme.  Consequently, after voting to reject your proposal as an integrated whole in April, 2012, it took us many more months to wade through the many individual threads of your proposal and decide which ones we agreed with.  In doing so, we discovered other things we wanted to change, though often not in the way you originally suggested.

In the attached document, I have used Track Changes to show all of the changes that resulted from consideration of your proposal.

> From a philosophical perspective, I think the most important change--and the most relevant to your initial proposal--is the expansion of the definition of "species" in the glossary, with ramifications elsewhere in the code, to include a broader range of views about the species category.   The definition in the glossary now reads as follows: "species. This term is used both for a kind of biological entity (for example, a population lineage segment) and for the lowest primary rank in traditional nomenclature (and thus also for any taxon assigned to that rank).  This code does not endorse any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, but it uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer to taxa that are used as specifiers in definitions of clade names.  Article 21 provides guidelines for the use of species names governed by the rank-based codes in conjunction with clade names governed by this code." 
Consideration of your proposal also resulted in many changes in Art. 11, regarding the use of species as specifiers, and in Art. 21, as well as scattered changes elsewhere in the code.

Although you are probably disappointed that your proposal as a whole was not adopted, I assure you that it was thoroughly considered and resulted in beneficial changes in the code.

With best regards,
Phil


<PhyloCode4c with CBM-related changes.doc>

David Baum
Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin
430 Lincoln Drive
Madison WI 53706

Office: +1(608)265-5385
Lab: +1(608)265-7929
Email: dbaum at wisc.edu 
<mailto: dbaum at wisc.edu 
>
Webpage: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/baum/ 
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Nico Cellinese, Ph.D.
Assistant Curator, Botany & Informatics
Joint Assistant Professor, Department of Biology

Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A.
Tel. 352-273-1979
Fax 352-846-1861 http://cellinese.blogspot.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130424/8f4cf274/attachment-0001.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: