[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

[Michel Laurin]

Dear colleagues,

I support the compromize of delaying discussion of Kevins's (Padian) 
proposal to forbid apomorphy-based definitions till after we have 
settled the issue of the species proposal. But I disagree slightly with 
Kevin's (de Queiroz) statement that not much has changed since the Paris 
meeting. We have had 8 years to think about these issues, and the CPN's 
composition and even number of members has changed. I think that it is 
really up to the whold CPN committee's to decide if we discuss this or 
not, but I think that usually, by default, we agree to discuss, although 
we may or may not approve the amendment. And I don't want to disucss a 
long discussion on this topic now, since most of us seem to agree to 
postpone it, but I would be favorable to at least advising against 
apomorphy-based definitions, as I had emphasized at the Paris meeting.

Best wishes,

Michel

On 11/01/12 19:41, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:
> 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
>
>

-- 
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669