[CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--USE THIS VERSION INSTEAD

    Michel LAURIN michel.laurin at upmc.fr
    Fri Jul 5 07:40:14 EDT 2013 
    Dear Phil et al.,

Indeed, I am currently in Lisbon, hence the delay. I have inserted a  
few comments and suggestions (using tracked changes) in the attached  
version (I hope that I used the latest version because Phil's message  
seemed to include two slightly different versions).

Cheers,

Michel

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

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> The version of the Note 9.3.1 reorganization that I sent you 
> yesterday included some notes to ourselves and to David that I 
> forgot to delete.  More importantly, I forgot to add some related 
> changes in Articles 2 and 11 from a separate document.  Please 
> discard the version I sent you yesterday and use the one attached to 
> this message instead. 
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
> Date: July 3, 2013 1:49:52 PM EDT 
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1 
>  
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> You were probably beginning to wonder if I had dropped off the face 
> of the earth, since I told you in mid-May that I would be able to 
> send a revised proposal by early June.  Here it is at last, though 
> you may not immediately recognize it as fundamentally the same 
> proposal you looked over in April. 
>  
> Partly in response to David Marjanovic's May 1 comments about the 
> last version of our proposal, and partly out of Kevin's and my own 
> feelings that it is inappropriate for something that is as central 
> to the PhyloCode as phylogenetic definitions to be covered in a 
> complex Note, Kevin took the initiative to draft an expansion of 
> Note 9.3.1 into a series of articles.  After he and I did some 
> fine-tuning, we sent it to David M. for comments.  David suggested 
> several changes, most of which we adopted, and in some cases 
> expanded on.  Because all three of us (Kevin, David and I) were slow 
> to respond at various stages in this process due to other 
> responsibilities, it has taken longer than I expected.  Although the 
> resulting set of rules and notes is considerably longer than Note 
> 9.3.1, this is not inappropriate given the importance of this 
> section, which is likely to be the most frequently consulted portion 
> of the code. 
>  
> These rules include some references to other articles, some of which 
> are numbered differently than in the current version of the code 
> because of changes that have already been approved by the CPN or 
> will be necessary if this expansion of Note 9.3.1 is adopted. 
> Specifically, Arts. 9.4 - 9.9 are the new articles included here. 
> Art 9.10 cited here is Art. 9.4 in the current online version of the 
> code.  Art. 11.12, cited here is Art. 11.9 in the current code. 
>  
> With many CPN members likely to be traveling during the summer, we 
> should give ourselves enough time so that everyone can read the 
> proposed changes carefully.  I suggest July 24 (three weeks) as a 
> target date to send comments, but please let me know if your plans 
> for this period make it difficult for you to do so in that time 
> frame.  I am not asking for any voting at this time.  Please send 
> your comments to the listserv, not to me personally. 
>  
> Regards, 
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
> Date: May 13, 2013 2:49:40 PM EDT 
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time 
>  
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> Although I had hoped to be able to generate a new revision of the 
> proposals related to Note 9.3.1 last week, it is not ready.  Kevin 
> and I worked on it via email last week and came up with wording we 
> are both comfortable with on some issues, but we haven't had time 
> yet to consider all of the aspects of David M's proposed 
> reorganization of that Note (and related matters in that message). 
> Unfortunately, I am leaving town on Wednesday for nine days and will 
> not be dealing with CPN business during that period, so it is going 
> to have to wait a few weeks.  I will do my best to get to it soon 
> after I return, but realistically, I think it is likely to be late 
> May or early June before we can send you a revised proposal. 
>  
> Regards, 
> Phil 
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
> Date: May 3, 2013 2:08:01 PM EDT 
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time 
>  
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> Quite a few changes were suggested on Wednesday, and it may take a 
> while for Kevin and me to work through them by email and generate a 
> new revision of the original set of proposals.  I hope to be able to 
> send it to you by the middle of next week but it could be later. 
>  
> Regards, 
> Phil 
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
> From: Michel Laurin < michel.laurin at upmc.fr 
<mailto: michel.laurin at upmc.fr 
>> 
> Date: May 1, 2013 8:20:20 PM EDT 
> To: " cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>" 
> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
> Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time 
>  
> Hi all, 
>  
> It is late, but I will be busy with something else tomorrow 
> (technically, later today because it is 2:20AM), so I just want to 
> add that after reading Kevin's and David's comments, with which I 
> agree (at least at first glance), if the changes outlined by both 
> are done, I think that I will feel comfortable voting for the 
> amendment. 
>  
> Good night, 
>  
> Michel 
>  
> On 02/05/13 02:10, David Marjanovic wrote: 
> The entire text of the version I propose follows. Because it is so 
> different from the current wording, I have not marked additions and 
> deletions, except where I propose to delete entire paragraphs. 
>  
> ================================= 
>  
> Note 9.3.1. The definition of "clade" is "an ancestor (an organism, 
> population, or species) and all of its descendants" (Art. 2.1). 
> Building on this definition, clade names can be defined by pointing 
> at such an ancestor, creating a phylogenetic definition. This can be 
> done in different ways, such as the following: 
>  
> *   The ancestor can be mentioned directly in an ancestor-based 
> definition: "A and all its descendants", where A is a specific 
> organism, population, or species. 
> *   Usually, however, the intended ancestor is not directly known. 
> Thus, the ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more 
> specifiers (Art. 11) that are mentioned directly: 
> *   A minimum-clade definition [note the hyphen which makes 
> clear that the clade, not the definition, is a minimum] may take the 
> form [...] 
> *   A maximum-clade definition may take the form [...] 
> *   An apomorphy-based definition may take the form [...] 
> *   The ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more 
> specifiers that are not mentioned directly, but described as members 
> of another clade that fulfill certain criteria. Such definitions may 
> first describe an unnamed clade and then use its extant members (or 
> those fulfilling another criterion) as specifiers for a 
> minimum-clade definition: 
> *   A maximum-modified crown clade definition [note the addition 
> of "-modified" to avoid confusion because crown clades are minimum 
> clades] may take the form [...] 
> *   An apomorphy-modified crown clade definition may take the form [...] 
> *   A crown clade in its entirety, mentioned by name, can be the 
> internal specifier in the definition of the name of a total clade 
> under the conditions specified in Art. 10.5. [This fact contradicts 
> a claim in Note 11.1.2.] 
>  
> [deletion of the two paragraphs that follow this list in the 
> proposal we're currently discussing] 
>  
> The above list is not exhaustive. Most importantly, definitions may 
> contain qualifying clauses that restrict their applications to 
> specific phylogenetic hypotheses (Art. 11.9). 
>  
> The system of abbreviations used here [...] 
>  
> For abbreviations involving qualifying clauses, see Note 11.9.1. 
>  
>  
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -- 
> Michel Laurin 
> UMR 7207 
> Mus?um National d?Histoire Naturelle 
> Batiment de G?ologie 
> Case postale 48 
> 43 rue Buffon 
> F-75231 Paris cedex 05 
> FRANCE 
>  http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
 
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Note 9.3.1 to Articles Version4a.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.word
Size: 32812 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130705/ecc1ec3f/attachment-0001.bin
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: