[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

[Cantino, Philip]

Kevin, would you mind delaying consideration of your proposal until after we finish with the species proposal?  I'm afraid that it will get rather confusing if the CPN tries to discuss two complex issues simultaneously.
Phil



On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Kevin Padian wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> As long as we are considering the Cellinese et al proposal to eliminate
> the privilege of species, I would like to submit some reasons why I
> believe (with many) that apomorphy-based definitions should also be
> eliminated.  The attached proposal offers some rationales, not all of
> which are particularly original; but I think on balance that doing without
> apomorphy-based definitions will relieve confusion among rank and file
> taxonomists and will also potentially eliminate a lot of poorly conceived
> definitions contributed to the database.  I welcome everyone's comments,
> and I hope that there can be a reasonable time for comments to be posted
> by the general community.  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 proposal against apo-baseddefs.docx>_______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn