[CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal

Fri May 11 15:54:40 EDT 2012

Hi Dave (and all others),

     What you propose is fine by me.

     Cheers,

     Michel

On 11/05/12 21:30, David Tank wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120511/3f395840/attachment-0001.html 