[CPN] two new sets of changes to consider
Cantino, Philip cantino at ohio.eduFri Sep 6 15:36:49 EDT 2013
- Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on Note 9.3.1 expansion and the next items of business
- Next message: [CPN] two new sets of changes to consider
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear CPN members, When the the CPN approved the expansion and modification of Note 9.3.1 about a month ago, I told you that we still needed to make some related changes in terminology of definition types throughout the code and add two examples to Art. 11.12 (Art. 11.9 in the online version of the code), before moving on to other assorted, unrelated modifications that Kevin and I have drafted over the past few years since the current version went online. I had hoped to send you the latter set of proposals by the end of August, but it took longer than expected to deal with the many minor ramifications of the last set of changes the CPN approved (the Note 9.3.1 expansion). I am attaching two sets of proposed changes for your consideration (one of them in two forms--one showing the changes using Track Changes and the other with the changes accepted for ease of reading). The shorter document (Art. 11.12-11.14) deals with qualifying clauses and other mechanisms that can be used to restrict the application of a name with respect to particular hypotheses of relationship or clade composition. In the process of adding examples to illustrate the use of external specifiers in a minimum-clade-definition and the use of multiple internal specifiers in an apomorphy-based definition, we decided it would be best to expand Art. 11.12 into three articles that deal with three different kinds of mechanisms. We also simplified what used to be Art. 11.9 Example 2 (now Art. 11.14, Ex. 1) and made a few changes in the other two examples following Art. 11.9 in the online version of the code. With so many changes and so much new material, it will probably be easiest for you to read the attached document in which all the changes are accepted, but I also attached one showing the changes in case you want to consult it. The other attached document consists of nearly the entire code This draft (version 4c2) consists of the current (posted online in 2010) PhyloCode version 4c (excluding the Preface and Index) with the addition of modifications approved by the CPN in a series of votes between September 2012 and August 5, 2013. The majority of these modifications came in response to the proposal by Cellinese et al. to remove all reference to species from the code, but some were the result of an unrelated proposal by de Queiroz and Cantino to revise and expand Note 9.3.1. After incorporating these major CPN-approved sets of changes, Kevin and I went through the whole code looking for related changes that needed to be made. Most of these consisted of changing the terms for definition types (e.g., changing node-based to minimum-clade) and correcting cross-references, because many articles have recently been renumbered. We have tried to update all of the cross-references but we may have missed some. Because thoroughly verifying the cross-referencing is a painstaking task, we prefer to postpone it until shortly before a new version of the code is posted. Consequently, you may find some incorrect cross-references in this draft. If you do, please let us know! The many corrections of this routine sort were simply made and accepted because we assume that the CPN members do not want to spend their time checking "housekeeping" that involves no substantive changes. However, we did make a few changes that we felt we should at least call to your attention, though we don't anticipate that there will be objections to any of them; these are marked in the attached document using Track Changes so you can find them easily. The parts we are asking you to check are located in: Arts. 9.5-9.8, 10.8, 11.2, Note 14.1.2, 15.11, Note 15.11.3, and the glossary. Although one of the attached documents is long, the parts you need to check are short and simple, so I don't anticipate it taking you very long. The shorter attached document will take you longer than the long one, but we hope that you can complete both within a week and send your comments to the listserv. Unless someone objects that this timeline is too tight, we will assume that anything you want to say about these proposals before voting will be said by next Friday (Sept. 13). Thank you. Best regards, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130906/2e0a6864/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Art. 11.12-11.14 with changes accepted.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: Art. 11.12-11.14 with changes accepted.doc Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130906/2e0a6864/attachment-0003.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Art. 11.12-11.14.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52224 bytes Desc: Art. 11.12-11.14.doc Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130906/2e0a6864/attachment-0004.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PhyloCode4c2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 346624 bytes Desc: PhyloCode4c2.doc Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130906/2e0a6864/attachment-0005.doc
- Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on Note 9.3.1 expansion and the next items of business
- Next message: [CPN] two new sets of changes to consider
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list