[CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Sun May 13 17:27:11 EDT 2012
I agree too.
Michel
On 13/05/12 21:18, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> I prefer Kevin Padian's suggested mechanism. The problem with sending
> all of our comments to the proposal authors is that some of the longer
> messages are no longer relevant. For example, I don't think it would
> be productive to send Nico et al. the lengthy counterproposal that I
> sent to the listserv on Jan. 15. Much of it was an attempt to find
> compromise wording I could live with for particular articles, but in
> many of these cases I prefer the current wording. Since the CPN has
> already voted overwhelmingly not to accept the entire Cellinese et al.
> proposal, most of my suggestions in the Jan. 15 message are no longer
> relevant. The same may also apply to some of the long messages sent
> by other CPN members. I like Kevin P's suggestion that those of us
> who wish to may prepare a summary of our objections to the Cellinese
> et al. proposal. Mine would draw from my previous comments but would
> be a lot briefer and more succinct. If this mechanism is adopted, I
> would hope that everyone who was actively involved in the discussion
> would send something to the proposal authors, though it might either
> be their previous comments as originally submitted or an abbreviated
> summary, whatever that person prefers.
>
> I do think that all comments from people who are not CPN members
> should be sent to the proposal authors.
>
> Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"de Queiroz, Kevin" <deQueirozK at si.edu
>> <mailto:deQueirozK at si.edu>>
>> *Date: *May 12, 2012 12:10:12 PM EDT
>> *To: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>,
>> Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> *Subject: **RE: [CPN] Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species*
>>
>> I don't think that it is appropriate for the proposers to be part of
>> the CPN discussion that leads to votes (unless they are already
>> members of the CPN). If we take the ICZN as a model, after a
>> proposal is submitted, it is published in the BZN and there is a
>> chance for public comment, which is also published in the BZN. I
>> believe the proposers are allowed to be part of that discussion
>> (point and counter-point). However, when it comes to the vote of the
>> Commission, the proposers are not involved unless they are already
>> committee members. If we were to follow that model, we could post on
>> the ICZN website all of the comments (from both members and
>> non-members of the CPN), both pro and con, provided that the authors
>> consent. I give my consent to post my comments.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu>
>> [cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu] On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip
>> [cantino at ohio.edu]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:55 AM
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>> Subject: [CPN] Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species
>>
>> This seems like a fair request. If the CPN agrees, I can easily add
>> Brent, Nico and David to the listserv for the purpose of this
>> discussion and then unsubscribe them after we are done discussing
>> their proposal. If we agree to this, though, I think Dave (as CPN
>> chair) will need to be assertive about cutting off discussion of
>> particular points if it becomes clear that the pros and cons of that
>> point are being stated repeatedly by the same people on each side.
>> Otherwise, progress will slow to a snail's pace and everyone's time
>> will be wasted.
>>
>> I'm not sure how best to give the proposal authors access to the
>> points that led to our initial decision. This relates to the
>> following in Dave's message yesterday:
>> "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." The
>> messages that Dave suggests are good choices, but I also suggest that
>> we include my explanation of why I object strongly to permitting the
>> conversion of specific epithets to clade names (i.e., the elimination
>> of Art. 10.9); this is in a relatively short message that I sent to
>> the CPN on January 11. Other members of the CPN may also want to
>> include points made in their messages too. Perhaps each of us
>> should choose particular points we would like to share with the
>> authors of the proposal, and in addition let's send them David
>> Hillis' comments.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Brent Mishler
>> <bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu<mailto:bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu>>
>> Subject: Re: [CPN] Decision on proposal with respect to species
>> Date: May 12, 2012 12:19:50 AM EDT
>> To: David Tank <dtank at uidaho.edu<mailto:dtank at uidaho.edu>>
>> Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>, David Baum
>> <dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu<mailto:dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu>>, Nico
>> Cellinese <ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu<mailto:ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for the news; it is better to hear it directly. I know there
>> is not a lot of precedent for CPN procedure; I think we were the
>> first "outside" proposal you had to deal with. So I'd like to
>> suggest a procedural improvement: at some point it would be fair for
>> us to have a chance to reply to points made by CPN members. So far
>> it has been like a debate where only one side is allowed to actually
>> debate. The people with vested interest in the current treatment of
>> species in the Phylocode, Kevin and Phil, are in the debate and none
>> of the three of us are.
>>
>> Just a thought,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2012, at 7:17 PM, David Tank wrote:
>>
>> Dear Nico, Brent, and David,
>>
>> Thank you for your thoughtful proposal for changes to the PhyloCode
>> with respect to species. The CPN has voted to reject the proposal as
>> an entire entity but also decided to continue discussion to determine
>> if there are elements of your proposal that we would like to
>> incorporate in the next revision of the draft code. I apologize on
>> behalf of the CPN for not having informed you promptly about the
>> initial vote, an oversight that was related to the fact that we are
>> still discussing elements of the proposal and thus view the
>> decision-making process as still in progress. At the conclusion of
>> this discussion, we will inform you of the outcome as well as posting
>> the CPN decision on the news section of the ISPN website.
>>
>> All the 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************
>> Brent D. Mishler
>> Professor, Department of Integrative Biology
>> Director, University and Jepson Herbaria
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> Mailing address:
>> UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
>> UNIVERSITY AND JEPSON HERBARIA
>> 1001 VALLEY LIFE SCIENCES BLDG # 2465
>> BERKELEY, CA 94720-2465 USA
>> Office: 4164 VLSB
>> Phone: (510) 642-6810 [office and lab]
>> FAX: (510) 643-5390
>> E-mail:
>> bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu<mailto:bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu>
>> WWW: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/people/mishler.html
>> **********************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPN mailing list
>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto: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/20120513/ef7c9862/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list