[CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi all,

  As Michael, I am also concerned about "minimum-clade definition with
multiple external specifiers, *including* those used in qualifying clauses".

  As I understand it, external specifiers will appear in minimal clade
definitions only as qualifying clauses. So the "including", and even the
"specially" proposed by Michael, would be inappropriate.

  If I am missing something here, disregard my note, if not, we should
rephrase this part of the text.


  Two other points:

  1 - In "*(only the “and” operator would normally be used in definitions
employing multiple internal specifiers)*". Is this more clearly stated in
another part of the Code?
  As above, if we are using "normally", we should explain the exceptions,
perhaps providing examples of cases where this does not apply, i.e. where
“or” operator is used in the definition of multiple internal specifiers.

  2 - In both total- and crown-clades where it is written: "If this kind of
definition is used and “extant” is intended to mean anything other than
extant on the publication date of the definition".
  My concern is that the definitions do not normally include the word
"extant", they just mention the specifiers (extant or not). So, where would
this information appear?

  This seems not to be an issue when the definition explicitly states that
it applies a total/crown clade (but see below).
  Yet, a definition using a Dodo will not be implicitly crown/total unless
it is stated somewhere that such specifier was extant "at a particular time
in human history ". Again, where should this information appear?

  BTW, what happens if a total/crown clade is defined *explicitly stating
that is applies a total/crown clade*, but than include "pre-historic" taxa
as specifiers?


  Sorry to bring all these issues. Forget them if they were already
discussed prior to my enrolment in the CPN.

  max







2018-06-18 12:58 GMT-03:00 Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
>:

> Dear CPN members, 
>  
> Kevin and I are proposing the attached additions to Article 9 to clarify 
> points of confusion that we became aware of in the process of editing 
> Phylonyms contributions.  These are probably the last changes in the code 
> that we will propose before the manuscript is finalized. 
>  
> If you have comments or questions, please send them to the listserv by 
> June 30.  If there is no ongoing discussion at that point, I will call for 
> a vote.   Please do not vote yet, in case there is discussion before June 
> 30. 
>  
> Best regards, 
> Phil 
>  
>  
-- 
Max Cardoso Langer Ph.D. (Bristol, UK)
Departamento de Biologia
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto
Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)
Av. Bandeirantes  3900
14040-901     Ribeirao Preto,  SP,  BRAZIL

Phone: +55 16 3315 3844
FAX: +55 16 3315 4886 http://sites.ffclrp.usp.br/paleo/ 
*A semântica é o último refúgio dos canalhas.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: < http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180625/8c4ad929/attachment.html 
>

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]