<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 27.08.2012 17:19, Cantino, Philip, wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">In addition, I would like the CPN to consider adopting
the following changes that were proposed by (or at least related
to the proposals of) CBM:
<div>1) Modify the Preamble to the wording suggested by CPN</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">
<div>2) Delete Note 3.1.1</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree; in the process, we could merge the remaining Note 3.1.2
into its Article. How about:<br>
<br>
"The system of nomenclature described in this code is independent of
categorical/taxonomic rank (e.g., genus, family, etc.); this code
does not prohibit, discourage, encourage, or require the use of such
ranks. Although clades are hierarchically related, and therefore
intrinsically ranked in the sense that some are more inclusive than
others, assignment of categorical ranks is not part of the formal
naming process and has no bearing on the spelling or application of
clade names."<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">
<div>3) Reword Art. 9.7 (but the modification I prefer differs
from that recommended by CBM); see below.</div>
<div>4) Reword Rec. 9c (but the modification I prefer differs from
that recommended by CBM); see below.</div>
<div>5) Delete Rec. 11.4B (because I don't think this code should
recommend what people do under the rank-based codes. What the
recommendation suggests is simply sensible nomenclatural
practice and therefore likely to be done anyway).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding my item 3 (Art. 9.7), which concerns the required
statement about the hypothesized composition of the named clade,
I want to retain the option of citing species (contrary to CBM)
but add a requirement that <u>if specimens are cited in the
composition statement</u> (as may be done by authors who agree
with CBM's perspective), then the author must also include the
name of a species or clade (less inclusive than the one whose
composition is being described) to which the specimen can be
referred, unless the clade whose composition is being described
does not contain any named species or subclades. My objective
here is to avoid the use of specimens <u>alone</u> to describe
the composition of clades larger than those approximating
species. CBM should not oppose this addition because it leaves
open the citation of subclades rather than species, which is
what most people would do anyway, regardless of their views
about species.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding my item 4 (Rec. 9c), I would like to reword the
recommendation slightly to include referral of less inclusive
clades as well as specimens. It would read: In order to
facilitate the referral of <b>less inclusive clades, as well as</b>
species <b>and specimens</b> that are not specifiers of the
clade name, the protologue should include a description,
diagnosis, or list of synapomorphies. [Proposed additions are
in boldface.]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm fine with 3 and 4.<br>
<br>
Rec. 11.4B is indeed "simply sensible nomenclatural practice and
therefore likely to be done anyway"; however, sometimes it's a good
idea to spell out the obvious. A Recommendation is just a
recommendation; it is by definition unenforceable -- we even say, in
item 5 of the Preamble, that other people shouldn't try to enforce
Recommendations for us: "editors and reviewers should not require
that they be followed".
</body>
</html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 27.08.2012 17:19, Cantino, Philip, wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">In addition, I would like the CPN to consider adopting
the following changes that were proposed by (or at least related
to the proposals of) CBM:
<div>1) Modify the Preamble to the wording suggested by CPN</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">
<div>2) Delete Note 3.1.1</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree; in the process, we could merge the remaining Note 3.1.2
into its Article. How about:<br>
<br>
"The system of nomenclature described in this code is independent of
categorical/taxonomic rank (e.g., genus, family, etc.); this code
does not prohibit, discourage, encourage, or require the use of such
ranks. Although clades are hierarchically related, and therefore
intrinsically ranked in the sense that some are more inclusive than
others, assignment of categorical ranks is not part of the formal
naming process and has no bearing on the spelling or application of
clade names."<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1B272EF8-A5CA-4A72-824A-D704726E5E56@ohio.edu"
type="cite">
<div>3) Reword Art. 9.7 (but the modification I prefer differs
from that recommended by CBM); see below.</div>
<div>4) Reword Rec. 9c (but the modification I prefer differs from
that recommended by CBM); see below.</div>
<div>5) Delete Rec. 11.4B (because I don't think this code should
recommend what people do under the rank-based codes. What the
recommendation suggests is simply sensible nomenclatural
practice and therefore likely to be done anyway).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding my item 3 (Art. 9.7), which concerns the required
statement about the hypothesized composition of the named clade,
I want to retain the option of citing species (contrary to CBM)
but add a requirement that <u>if specimens are cited in the
composition statement</u> (as may be done by authors who agree
with CBM's perspective), then the author must also include the
name of a species or clade (less inclusive than the one whose
composition is being described) to which the specimen can be
referred, unless the clade whose composition is being described
does not contain any named species or subclades. My objective
here is to avoid the use of specimens <u>alone</u> to describe
the composition of clades larger than those approximating
species. CBM should not oppose this addition because it leaves
open the citation of subclades rather than species, which is
what most people would do anyway, regardless of their views
about species.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding my item 4 (Rec. 9c), I would like to reword the
recommendation slightly to include referral of less inclusive
clades as well as specimens. It would read: In order to
facilitate the referral of <b>less inclusive clades, as well as</b>
species <b>and specimens</b> that are not specifiers of the
clade name, the protologue should include a description,
diagnosis, or list of synapomorphies. [Proposed additions are
in boldface.]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm fine with 3 and 4.<br>
<br>
Rec. 11.4B is indeed "simply sensible nomenclatural practice and
therefore likely to be done anyway"; however, sometimes it's a good
idea to spell out the obvious. A Recommendation is just a
recommendation; it is by definition unenforceable -- we even say, in
item 5 of the Preamble, that other people shouldn't try to enforce
Recommendations for us: "editors and reviewers should not require
that they be followed".
</body>
</html>