[CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal

[David Tank]

Hi All,

It's been brought to my attention that the results of the vote on the CMB proposal have been made public:  http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/2012/05/phylocode-will-not-be-amended.html

Clearly community discussion is what we wanted all along, but the unfortunate thing is that the authors of the proposal found out about the results of the vote not from us, but through the grapevine via this blog, and they are not too happy about it.  

I feel that it is our responsibility to communicate directly with the authors to let them know where we are in this process and give them some idea of the discussion that took place.  Something along the lines of:

Thank you for your thoughtful proposal for changes to the PhyloCode, with respect to species.  The CPN has voted to reject this proposal, however, with that decision, the committee also decided to continue discussion of the proposal to identify if there are elements of the proposal we would like to consider as revisions of the current draft code.  That discussion is still ongoing, and we will make you and the rest of the society aware of these changes through the news section of the ISPN website.  

Please feel free to edit - add, delete, etc. - I want this communication with the authors of the proposal to come from the CPN, not just me, so I appreciate your input.  Also, I wonder if we should post several of the responses and or snippets of the discussion for the authors and rest of the society to see?  For example, I feel that Dick Olmstead's review that he shared with the committee, David Hillis' comments, and Kevin's response do a very good job of articulating the position of the CPN, and it seems like the authors and the society should be aware of these.  Any thoughts?

Best,
Dave
 
_________________________________
David C. Tank
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium
University of Idaho
208.885.7033
dtank at uidaho.edu
http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/

On May 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Mike Keesey wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
>> Here is a revised definition of "species" that I proposed for the glossary
>> in January, incorporating a change that Michel recommended on an earlier
>> draft I sent to the CPN:
>> 
>> species.  A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a kind of
>> biological entity that may or may not be different from a clade or simply as
>> a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature.  This code does not endorse
>> any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, but it
>> uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer to taxa that
>> are used as specifiers in definitions of clade names.  Article 21 provides
>> guidelines for the use of species names governed by the rank-based codes in
>> conjunction with clade names governed by this code.
> 
> I like this definition. The first sentence is a bit difficult to read,
> though. Perhaps: "A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as
> a kind of biological entity (which may or may not be different from a
> clade) or as a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature."
> 
> While we're on the subject of updating the code, I note that some of
> the other codes have changed their names since the last draft of the
> PhyloCode was created. The International Code of Botanical
> Nomenclature (or the Botanical Code) is now the International Code of
> Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) and the International
> Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (or the Bacteriological Code) is now
> the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP). These
> are trivial updates that should be included in the next draft.
> 
> This was published yesterday by the International Committee on Bionomenclature:
> 
> David & al. (2012). Biological nomenclature terms for facilitating
> communication in the naming of organisms. ZooKeys 192:67–72.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.192.3347
> 
> It's basically an updated version of PhyloCode's Appendix C (itself
> based on a BioCode appendix, IIRC). Happy to see it includes the
> PhyloCode! I'd say the next draft should probably use it verbatim
> (except with the PhyloCode column first, an additional row for
> "converted" nomenclatural status, and perhaps any rows where
> PhyloCode's entry is "[none]" omitted).
> -- 
> T. Michael Keesey
> http://tmkeesey.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120511/55ef2341/attachment.html