[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

I'm not suggesting that the proposal never be considered, but things have not changed all that much since the Paris meeting.  I would not be opposed to reconsidering the issue after the PhyloCode had been in effect for 5 years or more.

Kevin


On 1/11/12 12:41 PM, "Kevin Padian" <kpadian at Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

Dear Phil and Kevin,

I'm happy to support delaying the consideration of the apomorphy-based
proposal.  I am not sure that it should be rejected out of hand, even if
it has been discussed before; the Paris meeting was some time ago and
perhaps there should be general weighing in from the community.  -- kp


> I think it is counter-productive to discuss eliminating apomorphy-based
> definitions at this stage.  This issue was considered and rejected during
> the process of developing the PhyloCode.  If I remember correctly, the
> species issue is in a different category than other previously discussed
> issues in that people who wished to eliminate considerations about species
> from the PhyloCode were encouraged to develop a proposal (at the Paris
> meeting).  Other proposals that have been rejected should not be up for
> continuous debate, or we will never make any progress.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On 1/11/12 10:25 AM, "Phil Cantino" <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> 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
>


--
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