[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
Max Langer mclanger at ffclrp.usp.brTue Dec 18 20:54:55 EST 2018
- Previous message: [CPN] Revisions of the code after it is published and implemented
- Next message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi all, I agree with Michel that sometimes it may be pointless to include a image that is already broadly known, which will mostly be the case of published images. So, my take on this is that we may allow referring to a existing image, instead of providing an image, but only when this image is a published one. The rest of the modifications is fine for me. max Em ter, 18 de dez de 2018 às 15:11, Adl, Sina < sina.adl at usask.ca > escreveu: > Thank you Phil, > I think this type of question, and others we have not thought of, and > others we have not discussed, will continue to arise from members and users. > It is probably a good time to start thinking about how to handle queries > and revisions after publication. A task for the executive to forward > proposals about committees to handle issues after publication, for the next > decades. We have a few very different models in existing Codes. I don't > think, having worked closely with some of them, that any of them are > effective for the 21st century -- they were not effective at handling > change at the end of the 20th. Sina > > Sina Adl Professor > Department of Soil Sciences > College of Agriculture and Bioresources > University of Saskatchewan > (306) 966-6866 > agbio.usask.ca > > Editor-in-Chief, Rhizosphere > http://www.journals.elsevier.com/rhizosphere/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: CPN < cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu > On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 10:31 > To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu > > Cc: Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br > > Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9 > > 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 > > >
> CPN mailing list > 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 > -- 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/20181218/ea283799/attachment-0001.html >
- Previous message: [CPN] Revisions of the code after it is published and implemented
- Next message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list