[CPN] additions to proposed modifications

    James Doyle jadoyle at ucdavis.edu
    Tue Nov 12 01:00:43 EST 2013 
    Hello Phil (and other CPN members),

I've read over and approve of all these changes.  I think it is more prudent to remove plant fossil morphotaxa (called various things in earlier versions of the IBC, such as form and organ genera) from the discussion that now covers just ichnotaxa and ootaxa.  Morphotaxa seem to me several steps above ichnotaxa in being real parts of organisms.  Some morphotaxa (like pollen genera) may be analogous to ootaxa (I didn't know these existed), but a lot of others have been variously considered "form genera" and "natural" or "whole plant genera" by different authors, for instance starting out as form genera but later being used as names for whole plants.  I'm not an expert on the arcane history of these concepts, but it would indeed raise havoc to exclude all names of taxa that have been called morphotaxa from use as specifiers.

Jim

On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:03 AM, "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

> Hi Jim, 
>  
> ... I would particularly like your opinion of the change in Rec. 11C, where we propose to delete some text referring to plant morphotaxa. 
On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:07 AM, "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> In the attached version of the code, Kevin and I have added several other changes that were not in the version I sent you on Nov. 1.  Some are in response to comments sent on Sept. 11 by David Marjanovic and the rest originated with us. 
>  
> The newly proposed modifications are highlighted in yellow so that you can easily find them (the are in Principle 6, Note 6.1A.1, Note 9.14A.2 Example 1, Rec. 11C, Art. 17.1, Art. 17.5, Art. 20.4 Example 1, Note 20.4.1 Example 1, the Glossary entries for "branch" and "node", and Appendix C).  All are minor, so I don't anticipate it will take you long to check them. 
>  
> I am surprised not to have received any comments on the changes I sent Nov. 1.  I hope this means that everyone is comfortable with the proposals.  On Friday, I will call for a vote unless there is discussion ongoing at that time.  The vote will be on the newly proposed changes (those highlighted in yellow) as well as those I sent on Nov. 1 (which are shown with Track Changes but without highlighting). 
>  
> Regards, 
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message: 
>  
>> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>> Date: November 1, 2013 10:03:31 AM EDT 
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>> Subject: Fwd: proposed modifications of PhyloCode 
>>  
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> Just a reminder: If you have comments, they should be sent to this listserv by next Friday (Nov. 8) so that there is an opportunity for discussion before I call for a vote.  No one has commented to date. 
>>  
>> Regards, 
>> Phil 
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message: 
>>  
>>> From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>>> Date: October 25, 2013 1:10:46 PM EDT 
>>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>> Subject: proposed modifications of PhyloCode 
>>>  
>>> Dear CPN members, 
>>>  
>>> Over the past three-plus years since version 4c was posted online, Kevin and I have come to an agreement on a variety of modifications, some of them originating with one of us and some originating with other members of the CPN.  There is no central theme to the proposals, as there has been for other sets of modifications the CPN has considered in the past two years (e.g., rules dealing with species; expansion of the section describing the kinds of definitions). 
>>>  
>>> The attached document consists of the most recently approved version of the code (i.e., including the modifications approved by the CPN last month), to which we have added the newly proposed changes using the Track Changes function of MS-Word.  If there is anyone who does not have MS-Word or an equivalent package that allows you to see the tracked changes, please let me know.  The Preface and Index are not included in this document. 
>>>  
>>> The proposed changes occur in the Preamble, Articles 6, 7, 9 (beginning with 9.8), 10, 11, 12.2, 14, 15.11.1 Example 1, Rec. 17.3A, 19, 20.8, 21, 22, Glossary, Appendix A, and Appendix C.  Although there are many changes, the vast majority of them are minor (e.g., updating the abbreviation for the botanical code in umpteen places; clarifications that don't affect content, additional parenthetical references to other parts of the code).   There are a few more substantive changes proposed, but we anticipate that most and perhaps all of them will be uncontroversial. 
>>>  
>>> Don't be concerned about formatting errors in this document (e.g., page breaks in inappropriate places; use of different fonts); these will be fixed later. 
>>>  
>>> We don't anticipate that it will take you very long to review these proposed changes because most are not substantive.  Two weeks should be more than adequate unless some of you are traveling without email access during this period.  I suggest Friday, Nov. 8 as the target date for comments.  If this is difficult for some of you, or if discussion on some points is still ongoing on that date, we can extend the deadline. 
>>>  
>>> Thank you, all. 
>>>  
>>> Best regards, 
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>  
>>  
>  
>  
> <PhyloCode4c3a.doc><PhyloCode4c3.doc>_______________________________________________ 
> 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/20131112/e29e2fe4/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: