[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

[Kevin Padian]

That doesn't seem to make sense; if people start constructing
apomorphy-based definitions and if then after five years the CPN were to
eliminate them?  Besides, when is the PhyloCode going into effect?  -- kp

> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
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