[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
George Sangster g.sangster at planet.nlFri Dec 21 17:59:10 EST 2018
- Previous message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Next message: [CPN] Fwd: ratification of the PhyloCode
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi Phil, Same here: OK by me. George Sangster Op 21-12-2018 om 22:58 schreef Richard G. Olmstead: > Phil, > Reads okay to me. > Dick > > > >> On Dec 21, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu >> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >> wrote: >> >> Dear CPN members, >> >> The attached second draft of the proposed changes in Art. 11.9 >> incorporates the ideas expressed by Michel and others in our >> discussion this past week. He, Nico and Kevin have already seen this >> draft and are comfortable with it. In the absence of any other >> concerns having been raised by CPN members, Kevin and I will consider >> this change to be accepted by the CPN. However, if you think a >> formal vote is needed, please let me know. >> I wish the best to everyone for the holidays! >> >> Phil >> >> >> >>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br >>> <mailto: mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> <mailto: 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 < http://agbio.usask.ca/ > >>> >>> Editor-in-Chief, Rhizosphere >>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/rhizosphere/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: CPN < cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu >>> <mailto: 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 <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> >>> Cc: Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br >>> <mailto: 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 <mailto: 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 >>> <mailto: deQueirozK at si.edu >> >>> > À: Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu >>> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >>, Michel LAURIN < michel.laurin at mnhn.fr >>> <mailto: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr >> >>> > Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature >>> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >>, Max >>> Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br <mailto: 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 >>> <mailto: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu > on behalf of >>> cantino at ohio.edu <mailto: 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 <mailto: 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 <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu >> >>> >> À: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature >>> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >> >>> >> Cc: Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br >>> <mailto: 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 >>> < http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php > >>> >> E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr <mailto: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CPN mailing list >>> > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: 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 >>> < http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php > >>> > E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr <mailto: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr > >>> >>> >>>
>>> CPN mailing list >>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > >>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn >>>
>>> CPN mailing list >>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: 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 >>> / >>> // >>> / >>> / >>> / >>> . >>> / >>> / >>> / >>> // >>> >> >> >> <Article 11.9_proposed changes_draft >> 2.docx>_______________________________________________ >> CPN mailing list >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20181221/5edabf81/attachment-0001.html >
- Previous message: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
- Next message: [CPN] Fwd: ratification of the PhyloCode
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list