[CPN] Calling for a Vote on 2 sets of changes sent to you Sept. 6

    Kevin PADIAN kpadian at berkeley.edu
    Mon Sep 16 12:49:53 EDT 2013 
    Yes, I agree with David M on his comments and hope that the "node" stuff
can be included -- kp

Kevin Padian
Professor and Curator
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Michel Laurin < michel.laurin at upmc.fr 
>wrote:

> 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 
> 
> *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 
> 
>  
> 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 
 
>  
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing listCPN at listserv.ohio.eduhttp 
://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 
>  FRANCEhttp://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
 
>  
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130916/8c0cc51d/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: