[CPN] Publication-Related Issues

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

1.  I'm not sure that we need this meeting.  Perhaps this will become clear when we start discussing the species issue.

2.  I'm opposed to the idea of circulating a call of further modifications of the PhyloCode at this late date.  People have had plenty of time to do this, and we have some significant proposals to deal with in the near future (species, electronic publishing).

3.  As I said in my earlier message, we're stuck with the Companion Volume for better or worse.  Changing the model so that the CV is no longer tied to the start of the PhyloCode runs the serious risk of destroying the project altogether and fragmenting the community as a consequence.  People just have to be patient.  Note that the Zoological Code took over 60 years from initial drafts by Strickland until the publication of the first official code, so we're really not doing badly by comparison.

One thing I don't understand is why it's important that some members of the systematic community THINK that the project is dead.  What they think has little bearing on what is actually happening.

Kevin


On 11/16/11 2:05 AM, "Kevin Padian" <kpadian at Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I am concerned about several issues on which I would like your views.  We
have a proposal on the table about the rank of species, and we are likely
to have others.  It seems impractical to try to resolve these things by
email.  Also, the editing of the Companion Volume, on which (by statute)
the publication of the PhyloCode depends, is proceeding so slowly that by
one estimate it will not be completed, even with its present complement of
submitted articles, until 2056.

1.  I propose that we convene a meeting of the CPN, not associated with
any scholarly society's meeting, sometime during the first six months of
2012.  I would be glad to host this at Berkeley but would be happy if a
more central or convenient location for other members were identified.

2.  In the intervening time I would suggest circulating a call for
proposals in the systematic community that would suggest any changes in
the substance or wording of the PhyloCode, prior to its publication; no
further changes would be entertained for a period of "x" (x to be
determined) years afterward.  These proposals would have a deadline at
least a month before the meeting.  The CPN would consider them at that
meeting.

3.  Because the editorial regime of the Companion Volume is not working as
it was intended, and as a result many members of the systematic community
believe that the PhyloCode is dead, the CPN has to find another solution.

I am not the chair of the CPN; I write only as a member of the CPN to ask
for a workable approach to these problems.  I feel somewhat obligated, as
the incoming head of the ISPN, to suggest that these issues be addressed
in timely fashion.  We have to have some mechanism to move forward.  I am
really fine with whatever the group decides, but I feel that some decision
on how to proceed is important.  Please give me your views on these
issues.  Thanks -- kp

--
Kevin Padian
Department of Integrative Biology &
Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140
510-642-7434
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php


_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn