[CPN] proposal to eliminate apomorphy-based definitions

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

Actually, the decisions at the Paris meeting were based on the collective wisdom of a more inclusive group, because the CPN did not yet exist.  When I say that not  all that much has changed, I mean that more or less the same group of people is still the primary driving force behind the PN movement.  And we still seem to hold similar views, as evinced by both the Cellinese et al. proposal and the Padian proposal.

The problem I see is that we all have our pet peeves-things that we don't like about the current version of the PhyloCode but which were agreed upon by a group decision.  If we open the door to revising all of those issues now, we will waste an incredible amount of time debating the same old issues, and this will cause further delays to the publication of both the PhyloCode and the Companion Volume.  If this project is ever going to be completed, each of us is going to have to accept that there are going to be some things about it with which we disagree.  If we can't do that, then the project will surely die.  In this context, the most obvious candidates for removal from consideration are those things that have already been resolved by a vote.

KdQ

On 1/11/12 2:49 PM, "Michel Laurin" <michel.laurin at upmc.fr> wrote:

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