Dear colleagues, I approve the changes. Michel On 16/09/13 01:50, Cantino, Philip wrote: > Dear CPN members, > > In the absence of any more comments, I am calling for a vote on > slightly modified versions of the two sets of proposed code changes I > sent you on Sept. 6. The only difference between the attached > versions and the Sept. 6 ones is that David M's corrections of typos, > formatting, etc. have been incorporated. Kevin and I also agree with > his recommendation that "node" be retained in the glossary, and that > Note 9.7.1 be modified to say that an apomorphy-based definition > necessarily identifies a clade provided that there is only one > internal specifier. Those changes from the Sept. 6 proposals are also > incorporated in the attached document PhyloCode4c2. > > I interpret David M's and Brian's comments as a YES vote on the > attached versions, unless they tell me otherwise. Everyone else, > please vote by this Friday (Sept. 20) by responding to all. > > Phil > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >> >> *Subject: **Re: [CPN] two new sets of changes to consider* >> *Date: *September 13, 2013 4:08:04 PM EDT >> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> >> >> Thank you, David M, for a very careful reading of the proposals. I >> have corrected the various formatting errors, typos, and missing >> dates that David pointed out. (Incidentally, I agree with his "pet >> peeve" about the period belonging inside the parentheses, but I >> overlooked it in the spot he pointed out.) >> >> I will correct the references to various examples of Art. 11.13 if >> the CPN votes to approve the revision of Art. 11.12-11.14 that you >> have been considering this week. Most of David's other suggested >> changes are not directly related to this set of proposals, so we can >> delay their consideration until after voting on the current proposals. >> >> Two points in David's message are relevant to the current set of >> proposals: deletion of the definition of "node" from the glossary, >> and clarification of a point he raised about Note 9.7.1. I sent my >> recommendation on these two items to Kevin a few minutes ago and am >> awaiting his reply. >> >> Today was the tentative deadline for comments. If you intend to >> comment on the proposals I sent last Friday, please either do so >> today or request an extension. If I do not hear from anyone by the >> end of the day, I will call for a vote as soon as Kevin and I decide >> how we want to address the two issues David raised. >> >> Phil >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:47 PM, David Marjanovic wrote: >> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Art. 11.12, Example 1: In the 4th-to-last line there's >>> "*Multelidae*" instead of *Mustelidae*. >>> Art. 11.13, Example 3: The year of *Podocarpus macrophyllus* >>> (Thunberg) Sweet is missing. >>> Pet peeve alert: At the very end, put the period in front of the >>> closing parenthesis. When you put a whole sentence into parentheses, >>> put the whole sentence, including the period at its end, into >>> parentheses. >>> >>> Otherwise, I approve. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I approve of all changes except the deletion of "node" from the >>> glossary; I have not systematically looked for uncorrected >>> cross-references. >>> >>> There's an extra period between Principles 5 and 6. >>> In Principle 6, I'd like to propose replacing "a given" by "any >>> particular". >>> Note 6.1A1 states that italicizing all taxon names is not consistent >>> with the ICZN. The passage of the ICZN that says only genus and >>> species names should be italicized, however, is "only" General >>> Recommendation 6: "6. The scientific names of genus- or >>> species-group taxa should be printed in a type-face (font) different >>> from that used in the text; such names are usually printed in >>> italics, which should not be used for names of higher taxa. >>> Species¬group names always begin with a lower-case letter, and when >>> cited should always be preceded by a generic name (or an >>> abbreviation of one); names of all supraspecific taxa begin with an >>> upper-case (capital) letter." >>> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?nfv=&booksection=appendixB >>> Note 9.5.2: "Art. 11.12, example 5", which does not currently exist, >>> will become Art. 11.13, Example 1 under the other proposal. >>> Note 9.6.1: "Art. 11.12, Example 4", which does not currently exist, >>> will become Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal. >>> Note 9.7.1: "An apomorphy-based definition as described in Art. 9.7 >>> necessarily identifies a clade" only if it has only one internal >>> specifier. >>> Art. 9.8: Note 9.8.1 should be indented twice to make clear that the >>> bulleted examples below it belong directly to the Article, not to >>> the Note, and that the Note refers specifically to the example above >>> it. In the first example after the Note, "Art. 11.12, Example 3" >>> will become Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal. I'm >>> confused now, because "Art. 11.12, Example 4" must correspond to the >>> same Example... >>> Art. 9.9: In the second example, "Art. 11.12, Example 3" will become >>> Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal. >>> Art. 9.10: Replace "Art. 9.10," by "Art. 9.10.". >>> Art. 17.1: I propose deleting "foreign to classical Latin". Not only >>> is it unnecessary, but -- I think we had that discussion a few years >>> ago -- there is a diacritical sign that was used in Classical Latin, >>> even in stone inscriptions: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_%28diacritic%29 >>> Art. 17.5, taken literally, appears to contradict Art. 17.1 and 17.2. >>> Art. 20: Two Examples use "2010"; that's over... >>> Glossary: The term "node" is still used in the glossary entries for >>> "branch" and "phylogenetic tree", and in the footnote to Art. 9.5 >>> (and 9.6). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> 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/20130916/9ecca9e9/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.