[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
Cantino, Philip cantino at ohio.eduTue Dec 18 11:30:30 EST 2018
- Previous message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Next message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Colleagues, I think the discussion may be getting overly broad. Images are not required in connection with the vast majority of phylogenetic definitions. The article we are considering concerns a narrow situation—the use of specimens that are not types as specifiers. For the most part, this situation will only arise when one is defining the names of clades within a species or a small complex of species (see Art. 11.7). Currently, Art. 11.9 requires an author to submit to RegNum a description of a non-type specimen used as a specifier. We are proposing to permit an image to be submitted instead of a description if the author prefers. However, a description will still be an acceptable alternative. In view of Kevin’s comments about the availability of non-copyrighted images and the ease with which permission would likely be granted to reuse images from museum collections, inability to submit an image is likely to be a rare event. When it does occur, a description could be submitted instead. I therefore don’t think we need to permit reference to an existing image to substitute for submitting the image itself. It would be good to hear from others if they have an opinion on this. Best regards, Phil > On Dec 17, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Michel LAURIN < michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Following Phil's and Kevin's messages, with which I agree, I wish to clarify that my intention is not to suggest that reference to just any image anywhere on the Internet or in any publication is as good as having the image uploaded into Regnum and published properly. However, note that many journals, even prominent ones like Nature and Systematic Biology have an abysmal record of maintaining supplements (they now decline responsibility and expect authors to submit these on external repositories like Dryad, but even there, the guarantee is that the supplements will be maintained 50 years, which is not that long for biological nomenclature). So, perhaps it would be worth stating somewhere that such images should be in the body of the paper, rather than in supplements, if that is not implied by other articles of the code. > > Back to the main point, I think that publication images of specimens should be strongly encouraged, perhaps by a recommendation. But if an author does not wish to, or cannot produce an image of the specimen, he should at least reference existing images, if some are available. That is better than nothing. The text could be developed to clarify this, I suppose. I tried to keep it short and simple, but perhaps it was too short and too simple. > > Best wishes, > > Michel > > ----- Mail d’origine ----- > De: de Queiroz, Kevin < deQueirozK at si.edu > > À: Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu >, Michel LAURIN < michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > > Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >, Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br > > Envoyé: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:05:42 +0100 (CET) > Objet: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9 > > For images in the Wikimedia Commons, it seems that they may be freely reused, so perhaps they could simply be copied and uploaded to Regnum. > > In the case of images associated with museum collections, permission could likely be obtained to reuse the image, although such images will be rare for specimens that are not types. > > In the case of images in publications, if the publication is open access, the image could perhaps be uploaded to RegNum. If it is not open access, I think it would be acceptable to cite the publication with the relevant figure reference. > > Kevin > > On 12/17/18, 11:59 AM, "CPN on behalf of Cantino, Philip" < cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu on behalf of cantino at ohio.edu > wrote: > > Dear Michel (and other CPN members), > > I initially liked Michel’s suggestion, but as I thought more about it, I became concerned about the longevity of the public repository. Do we want to rely on the continued existence of a repository that we have no control over? In contrast, the longevity of an image that resides in the RegNum database is fully under the control of the ISPN. I am not firmly opposed to Michel’s suggestion, but I would like to know what others think. > > Phil > > >> On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:37 AM, Michel LAURIN < michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I agree with the proposed revision. However, I think that we could perhaps improve it a little by adding something like this, after this sentence "When a specimen that is not a type is used as a specifier in a phylogenetic definition, either a brief description or an image of the specimen must be provided, sufficient to convey a mental image to a non-specialist and distinguish the specimen from organisms with which it might be confused. " >> >> I suggest that we add something like: "If no image is provided but if such an image has been published or is available in public repositories (such as Wikimedia Commons), a reference to such an image, with all the information necessary to retrieve it and identify it unambiguously, must be provided." The idea is that in some cases, systematists may not feel compelled to provide a new image of the specimen if one exists, but the existence of that image may not be widely known, especially if it is in a small, local publication. I think that if such an image exists, the minimal requirement would be to mention it. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Mail d’origine ----- >> De: Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu > >> À: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu > >> Cc: Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br > >> Envoyé: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 02:53:23 +0100 (CET) >> Objet: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9 >> >> Dear CPN members, >> >> When I sent you version 6 of the code last month, I thought it would be the final draft unless the CPN calls for changes. However, in the process of revising Appendix A (which in itself does not require CPN approval) a concern arose, which our proposed revision of Article 11.9 is intended to address. >> >> The attached document also includes two relevant articles in which no changes are proposed (11.7 and 11.8). For context, it is important to read both of them before considering the proposed changes in Art. 11.9. >> >> Please look this over soon and send your comments by next Friday (Dec. 21) by replying to this message (reply to all). I don’t think this will take anyone more than five minutes, so a week seems more than sufficient, but the deadline can be extended if some of you are away from email due to travel. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> -- >> Michel Laurin >> CR2P, UMR 7207 >> Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle >> Bâtiment de Géologie >> Case postale 48 >> 43 rue Buffon >> F-75231 Paris cedex 05 >> FRANCE >> http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php >> E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > > > > -- > Michel Laurin > CR2P, UMR 7207 > Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle > Bâtiment de Géologie > Case postale 48 > 43 rue Buffon > F-75231 Paris cedex 05 > FRANCE > http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php > E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr
- Previous message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Next message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list