<HTML><HEAD><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></HEAD><BODY>
<div style="">
<div>Dear CPN members,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Monday, while voting on the changes in Art. 21, Andy raised "a minor quibble" about Rec. 21.3A (that part of his message is copied below). Kevin and I agree with him and have drafted the attached proposed change in Rec. 21.3A and Note 21.3A.1. Because
the text we used as a starting point already includes changes that were approved this week by the CPN (shown with boldface and strikethrough font), we used Track Changes to show the new proposed revisions. In addition to adopting Andy's suggestion, we changed
the symbol designating established clade names from the copyright symbol © to [P] for consistency with Rec. 6.1B, Example 1. However, we used [nP] instead of [R], even though the latter is used in Rec. 6.1B Example 1 to indicate names governed by rank-based
codes, because in Rec. 21.3A, [nP] signifies something different--it indicates that the name is not an established clade name, regardless whether it is governed by the rank-based codes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the CPN approves these revisions, we will make corresponding changes throughout Art. 21 in the symbols used to indicate whether or not a name is an established clade name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Although I generally prefer that the CPN address one issue at a time, this one seems sufficiently simple, and hopefully uncontroversial, that I am going to ask for discussion (if any) on it at the same time as you are considering the deletion of Note 13.2.2,
which I sent you yesterday.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If discussion is minimal or seems to have ended, I will call for a vote on both questions next Tuesday.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Phil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="">
<div></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Frank Anderson wrote:</div>
<br class="x_Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="">
<div>Minor quibble -- I find it a bit odd that after Recommendation 21.3A, we give two examples -- one in which we use (C) to indicate a name is an established clade name (while leaving the (C) off means it isn't established)
<u>or</u> (R) to indicate that is not an established clade name (while leaving the (R) off means that it is established) -- but then add a note to the effect that it might be better to use both (C)
<u>and</u> (R), just to avoid ambiguity. Why not just have <i>one</i> example in which
<i>both</i> (C) and (R) are used as described in Examples 1 and 2 (to denote that something is or is not an established clade name, respectively) and have a note that says something to the effect of "But if you really want to just denote one type of name with
a symbol and denote the other type by just <i>not</i> using that symbol, you can do that, too". It seems we have a clear preference here to use both (C) and (R) (or some equivalent convention)...why not use
<i>that</i> as the example?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andy</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</BODY></HTML>
<div style="">
<div>Dear CPN members,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Monday, while voting on the changes in Art. 21, Andy raised "a minor quibble" about Rec. 21.3A (that part of his message is copied below). Kevin and I agree with him and have drafted the attached proposed change in Rec. 21.3A and Note 21.3A.1. Because
the text we used as a starting point already includes changes that were approved this week by the CPN (shown with boldface and strikethrough font), we used Track Changes to show the new proposed revisions. In addition to adopting Andy's suggestion, we changed
the symbol designating established clade names from the copyright symbol © to [P] for consistency with Rec. 6.1B, Example 1. However, we used [nP] instead of [R], even though the latter is used in Rec. 6.1B Example 1 to indicate names governed by rank-based
codes, because in Rec. 21.3A, [nP] signifies something different--it indicates that the name is not an established clade name, regardless whether it is governed by the rank-based codes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the CPN approves these revisions, we will make corresponding changes throughout Art. 21 in the symbols used to indicate whether or not a name is an established clade name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Although I generally prefer that the CPN address one issue at a time, this one seems sufficiently simple, and hopefully uncontroversial, that I am going to ask for discussion (if any) on it at the same time as you are considering the deletion of Note 13.2.2,
which I sent you yesterday.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If discussion is minimal or seems to have ended, I will call for a vote on both questions next Tuesday.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Phil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="">
<div></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Frank Anderson wrote:</div>
<br class="x_Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="">
<div>Minor quibble -- I find it a bit odd that after Recommendation 21.3A, we give two examples -- one in which we use (C) to indicate a name is an established clade name (while leaving the (C) off means it isn't established)
<u>or</u> (R) to indicate that is not an established clade name (while leaving the (R) off means that it is established) -- but then add a note to the effect that it might be better to use both (C)
<u>and</u> (R), just to avoid ambiguity. Why not just have <i>one</i> example in which
<i>both</i> (C) and (R) are used as described in Examples 1 and 2 (to denote that something is or is not an established clade name, respectively) and have a note that says something to the effect of "But if you really want to just denote one type of name with
a symbol and denote the other type by just <i>not</i> using that symbol, you can do that, too". It seems we have a clear preference here to use both (C) and (R) (or some equivalent convention)...why not use
<i>that</i> as the example?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andy</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</BODY></HTML>