[CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE

• Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I vote for, even though I still think that there are imprecisions in the 
formulation of apomorphy-based definitions...

     Michel

On 26/07/13 20:43, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> A new version of the proposal we have been discussing is attached 
> (version 4d).  This version includes parenthetical references to the 
> old terminology, as requested by several of you, and addresses Kevin 
> de Q's concern with a new footnote.  The missing quotation mark 
> pointed out by David has also been corrected. 
>  
> At this point, I'd like to call for a vote on this set of proposed 
> changes.   I assume that everyone has read it by now, but I also 
> realize that there are various conferences going on right now, not to 
> mention fieldwork and vacations, so I think we should give ourselves 
> at least ten days.   I'm going to set Monday, August 5 as the target 
> date to conclude the voting, but if anyone feels this is insufficient 
> time, please let me know. 
>  
> Your vote should be sent to the CPN listserv. 
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>> *Date: *July 25, 2013 9:41:38 AM EDT 
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>> *Subject: **Fwd: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 
>> 9.3.1--COMMENTS DUE BY WEDNESDAY* 
>>  
>> I don't mind deleting the references to "stem-based", but I agree 
>> with Brian, Jim and Michel that the terms node-based and branch-based 
>> should be referenced in some way in these articles.  I'll have to 
>> delay the vote on this set of proposals until Kevin and I discuss 
>> this issue and hopefully come up with wording that everyone can live 
>> with. 
>>  
>> Yesterday was the deadline for comments, so I am going to assume that 
>> everyone has read the proposal and, in the absence of other comments, 
>> the only issue that needs further attention before we vote is the 
>> referencing of the terms currently used for these definition types. 
>>  
>> Phil 
>>  
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>  
>>> *From: *"de Queiroz, Kevin" < deQueirozK at si.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: deQueirozK at si.edu 
>> 
>>> *Subject: **Re: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 
>>> 9.3.1--COMMENTS DUE BY WEDNESDAY* 
>>> *Date: *July 24, 2013 3:14:35 PM EDT 
>>> *To: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>, Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
>>> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>>  
>>> Well, as Phil noted, "nothing in a code of rules is ever as simple 
>>> as it first appears."  I have reservations about these insertions, 
>>> because they make it seem as though the pairs of terms are 
>>> equivalent (i.e., that the newer terms are simply more accurate 
>>> descriptively, but that both sets of terms are names for the same 
>>> concepts).  In fact, the concepts themselves are not strictly 
>>> equivalent.  This situation is illustrated by the following 
>>> examples:  1) A directly-specified-ancestor definition is a special 
>>> case of a minimum-clade definition, but it is not necessarily a 
>>> special case of a node-based definition (it could also be 
>>> branch-based).  2) A maximum-crown-clade definition is a special 
>>> case of a maximum clade definition, but its supposed equivalent, the 
>>> branch-modified node-based definition, is a special case of a 
>>> node-based (rather than branch-based) definition.  Because the 
>>> concepts are not strictly equivalent, I think it might cause 
>>> unanticipated future confusion to treat them as if they are. 
>>>  
>>> In addition, even if we decide to include the insertions, I favor 
>>> deleting reference to "stem-based definition" and "stem-modified 
>>> node-based definition".  Those terms go back an additional 
>>> generation and probably don't need to be covered here (they are 
>>> covered in the Preface).  Moreover, they are misleading in that the 
>>> term "stem" properly refers to a subset of branches (those that are 
>>> parts stem lineages). 
>>>  
>>> Kevin 
>>>  
>>> From: <Cantino>, Phil Cantino < cantino at ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
><mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> 
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:44 AM 
>>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>> Cc: Kevin de Queiroz < dequeirozk at si.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: dequeirozk at si.edu 
><mailto: dequeirozk at si.edu 
>> 
>>> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--COMMENTS 
>>> DUE BY WEDNESDAY 
>>>  
>>> Dear CPN members, 
>>>  
>>> In light of the comments from Brian, Jim and Michel, I have modified 
>>> the text to insert parenthetical references to the old terms for 
>>> these definitions (see attached draft).  Kevin and I normally run 
>>> drafts by each other before presenting them to the CPN, but this 
>>> modification seems uncomplicated (though this is probably a rash 
>>> comment on my part, as nothing in a code of rules is ever as simple 
>>> as it first appears).  To save time, I am sending it to you at the 
>>> same time as Kevin receives it.  (Kevin, if you could comment on 
>>> this quickly, it would be helpful.) 
>>>  
>>> Others of you who have not commented and wish to, please go ahead 
>>> and do so today. 
>>>  
>>> Thank you. 
>>>  
>>> Regards, 
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>>  
>>> From: James Doyle < jadoyle at ucdavis.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: jadoyle at ucdavis.edu 
><mailto: jadoyle at ucdavis.edu 
>> 
>>> Date: July 23, 2013 9:10:24 PM EDT 
>>> To: " cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>" 
>>> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--COMMENTS 
>>> DUE BY WEDNESDAY 
>>>  
>>> Hello Phil et al., 
>>>  
>>> At the last minute I've finally gone through all the e-mails on 
>>> these issues since April.  The one thing that has bothered me all 
>>> along is Brian's point about continuity of old and new terms.  At 
>>> first the change in terminology struck me as one of those annoyances 
>>> that turn people off to nomenclature of all kinds - first we ask 
>>> people to adopt one new set of terms, like node- and branch-based, 
>>> and then just when they think they finally understand them we tell 
>>> them to forget all about it and adopt a new set, for reasons that 
>>> seem exceedingly abstruse (sorry, Kevin).  But now I'm coming around 
>>> to the notion that the new terms are theoretically better and 
>>> self-explanatory enough, actually more so than the old ones, and as 
>>> a neo/paleo person I'm relieved that the terms crown clade and total 
>>> clade maintain their conspicuous roles.  The idea that you'll change 
>>> the terminology throughout the companion volume is also a big relief. 
>>>  
>>> Nevertheless, I really would feel better if the old terms were 
>>> explicitly acknowledged in the text where the new terms are 
>>> introduced, not relegated to the glossary, since so many people have 
>>> seen the old terms in the literature on phylogenetic nomenclature 
>>> and have made efforts to understand them.  At the very least this 
>>> could be done parenthetically in terms such as "see Glossary for the 
>>> relations of these terms to the widely used terms node-based and 
>>> branch-based." 
>>>  
>>> Jim 
>>>  
>>> Brian, 
>>>  
>>> This is a good point.  My understanding is that we editors will be 
>>> responsible for changing all the terminology throughout the 
>>> companion volume before it is published, so it will not be a 
>>> headache for the authors and there will be no discrepancy between 
>>> the companion volume and the code.  (Kevin, please confirm whether 
>>> this is your understanding as well.) 
>>>  
>>> As for your suggestion that the old terms be mentioned in the new 
>>> text for the sake of continuity, since the old (current) terms are 
>>> widely known and used, I think the best place to do that might be 
>>> the glossary. 
>>>  
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Brian Andres wrote: 
>>>  
>>>> Greetings all, 
>>>>  
>>>> I like how this section has been fleshed out commensurate to its 
>>>> importance. If the proposed changes are voted down, I would suggest 
>>>> keeping most of the new text with the old terminology. However, I 
>>>> do have one reservation for the proposed changes in terminology. If 
>>>> we excise all the node- and branch-based terms, are we going to ask 
>>>> all the authors for Companion Volume to rewrite their entries with 
>>>> these terms removed? Both the Examples_for_Authors and 
>>>> Instructions_for_Authors use these terms, and #5 under Format for 
>>>> Entries in the Instructions requires their use. I for one use these 
>>>> the old terms seven times in my entries. There is a tradition of 
>>>> using this terminology in the literature and previous versions of 
>>>> the Code, and I wonder if they should be at least mentioned in the 
>>>> discussion of minimum- and maximum-clade definitions for continuity 
>>>> and for this discrepancy between the Code and Companion Volume. 
>>>>  
>>>> Best, 
>>>> £á 
>>>>  
>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
 
>>>> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
><mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> wrote: 
>>>>  
>>>>> David, 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thank you for spotting the omitted quotation mark.  You raise a 
>>>>> good point about multiple apomorphies.  If I recall correctly, a 
>>>>> definition of this type was also used in one of the entries for 
>>>>> the companion volume (I was not the lead editor on that one, so I 
>>>>> may be mis-remembering).  The use of multiple apomorphies is not 
>>>>> very different from the use of a single complex apomorphy, which 
>>>>> is addressed in Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E.   It may well be worth 
>>>>> expanding that article and recommendation to cover complex 
>>>>> apomorphies as well, or perhaps covering them separately but with 
>>>>> wording parallel to that of Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E.  I also wonder 
>>>>> whether that article and recommendation should be moved up into 
>>>>> the section of Article 9 that we are now considering.  However, 
>>>>> I'd prefer to delay considering these questions  until we find out 
>>>>> whether the proposal already on the table is approved by the CPN. 
>>>>> I'll make a note to myself so I don't forget to come back to this 
>>>>> later. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Phil 
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David Marjanovic wrote: 
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Good point in Note 9.5.2 about the use of external specifiers for 
>>>>>> minimum-clade definitions. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> In the explanation of apomorphy-modified crown clade definitions, 
>>>>>> the quotation mark after "the crown clade characterized by 
>>>>>> apomorphy M (relative to other crown clades) as inherited by A" 
>>>>>> is missing. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Should we explicitly acknowledge the possibility of multiple 
>>>>>> apomorphies in an apomorphy-based definition? I've seen at least 
>>>>>> one in the literature, along the lines of "the first ancestor 
>>>>>> that had all of the following list of apomorphies inherited by A, 
>>>>>> plus all its descendants". 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> That's all. :-) 
>>>>>> 
 
>>>>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>>>> <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>>>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
 
>>>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>>> <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
 
>>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>> <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
 
>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>> <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
><mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> James A. Doyle 
>>> Department of Evolution and Ecology 
>>> University of California 
>>> Davis, CA 95616, USA 
>>> Telephone:  1-530-752-7591; fax:  1-530-752-1449 
>>> 
 
>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: 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 
 
-- 
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130729/6a38c935/attachment-0001.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]