[CPN] please vote on deletion of Rec. 11.4B
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Mon Sep 24 13:40:45 EDT 2012
I vote against the deletion. I still think that someday, the ISPN will
produce a code for species, and having some material to start such a
code in our PhyloCode cannot hurt.
Cheers,
Michel
On 24/09/12 16:59, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN members,
>
> I am following up on my Sept. 17 message (copied below). Since no one
> commented further on the question whether Art. 11.4 should be deleted,
> I am calling for a vote. Please send your vote to this listserv
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>> by FRIDAY
> (Sept. 28).
> YES=Delete Rec. 11.4B
> NO=Retain Rec. 11.4B
>
>> *Recommendation 11.4B. If a specimen that is not a type is used as a
>> specifier in the first situation described in Rec. 11.4A, and a
>> species that includes this specimen is subsequently named under the
>> appropriate rank-based code, this specimen should be chosen as the
>> type of the species name. *
> *
> *
>
> Pro and Con arguments, respectively:
>> 1) The PhyloCode should not recommend that specific actions be taken
>> under the rank-based codes. What Rec. 11.4B recommends is simply
>> sensible nomenclatural practice and therefore likely to be done anyway.
>> 2) Sometimes it's a good idea to spell out the obvious. A
>> Recommendation is just a recommendation; it is by definition
>> unenforceable -- we even say, in item 5 of the Preamble, that other
>> people shouldn't try to enforce Recommendations for us: "editors and
>> reviewers should not require that they be followed".
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> *Date: *September 17, 2012 1:05:50 PM EDT
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> *Subject: **[CPN] changes based on CBM proposal--the next step*
>>
>> It has been a week since I sent the message copied below, in which I
>> proposed a process to complete the CPN discussion of the species
>> proposal. Only two responses were sent to this listserve (from
>> Michel and David M), both of which were supportive, so I am going to
>> assume that no one is opposed to this procedure.
>>
>> As part of the suggested process, I asked that anyone who disagrees
>> with the spirit of changes 1-6 listed below send a message to the
>> listserve by Sept. 16 (yesterday). No messages were received, so I
>> am concluding that everyone supports these first 6 changes in
>> principle (though you will still have the opportunity to vote on
>> specific wording). I will therefore take the next step of
>> developing specific wordings for these changes in consultation with
>> Kevin. Some of them are quite simple, so I expect to be able to send
>> those to you this week. The revamping of Art. 21 will take more
>> time, so I will leave that to last and work on it while the CPN is
>> discussing and voting on the others.
>>
>> Item #7 (deletion of Rec. 11.4B) is not unanimously supported by the
>> CPN, so we will need to discuss and vote on that one. I suggest that
>> we start that discussion immediately because it can be done this week
>> while I am working with Kevin to recommend wording on the other changes.
>>
>> Art. 11.4 and its two recommendations read as follows:
>> 11.4. When a type specimen is used as a specifier, the species name
>> that it typifies and the author(s) and publication year of that
>> species name must be cited.
>> Recommendation 11.4A. The use of specimens that are not types as
>> specifiers is strongly discouraged. This should be done only under
>> the following two circumstances: 1) if the specimen that one would
>> like to use as a specifier cannot be referred to a named species, so
>> that there is no type specimen that could be used instead; or 2) if
>> the clade to be named is within a species.
>> *Recommendation 11.4B. If a specimen that is not a type is used as a
>> specifier in the first situation described in Rec. 11.4A
>> <http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art11.html#rec11.4a>, and a species
>> that includes this specimen is subsequently named under the
>> appropriate rank-based code, this specimen should be chosen as the
>> type of the species name. *
>>
>> Here are the two points of view about Rec. 11.4B that have been
>> expressed so far:
>> 1) I would like to delete Rec. 11.4B because I don't think the
>> PhyloCode should recommend what people to under the rank-based codes.
>> What Rec. 11.4B recommends is simply sensible nomenclatural practice
>> and therefore likely to be done anyway.
>> 2) David M. disagreed, stating, "however, sometimes it's a good idea
>> to spell out the obvious. A Recommendation is just a recommendation;
>> it is by definition unenforceable -- we even say, in item 5 of the
>> Preamble, that other people shouldn't try to enforce Recommendations
>> for us: "editors and reviewers should not require that they be
>> followed"."
>>
>> If anyone would like to add to this discussion (beyond simply
>> agreeing with one viewpoint or the other), please do so by Friday.
>> If no one disagrees with the timing I am suggesting, I will ask the
>> committee to vote on the deletion of Rec. 11.4B next Monday.
>>
>> I hope no one feels that I am out of place in suggesting the timing
>> for the discussion and the vote (since I am just a member of the
>> committee, not the chairman). If you would like to propose an
>> alternative procedure or timing, please say so. I am simply trying
>> to facilitate reaching a conclusion so that we can report back to the
>> authors of the proposal and move on to other matters that have been
>> brought up in the meanwhile.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>>> *Date: *September 10, 2012 2:33:09 PM EDT
>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> *Subject: **[CPN] Fwd: CPN action needed on species proposal*
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the plan was to send the authors our comments after we
>>>> agree on wording for the modifications of the code that stemmed
>>>> from the CBM proposal (see the last paragraph in Dave Tank's Aug.
>>>> 25 message). I hope we can move this along quickly now. Dave's
>>>> deadline for responding with general categories of changes was
>>>> Sept. 3. I suggest that we can finish with this matter most
>>>> quickly by proceeding as follows:
>>>> 1) Give committee members one week to speak up if any of us
>>>> disagrees that a certain change or kind of change (not the specific
>>>> wording) would be worthwhile.
>>>> 2) For those changes where there is no disagreement, I am willing
>>>> to take the lead in framing specific wording in consultation with
>>>> Kevin. Then we will submit our suggested wording to the CPN for
>>>> discussion, possible modification, and a vote. These should
>>>> probably be discussed and voted on one by one, as Kevin Padian
>>>> suggested, but let's try to limit ourselves to no more than a week
>>>> for each, preferably less, as I don't think most of them will be
>>>> controversial.
>>>> 3) For the suggested categories of change where there is
>>>> disagreement within the CPN, why don't we give ourselves a few days
>>>> to express our views and then vote on whether to turn them over to
>>>> me and Kevin to draft wording or leave them as currently worded in
>>>> the code. This can be done simultaneously with step 2 since step 2
>>>> does not involve the whole CPN.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has an alternative idea of how to proceed, please say so
>>>> soon; let's keep things moving along.
>>>>
>>>> I am aware of the following kinds of changes that have been proposed:
>>>> 1) Broadening the definition of species in the glossary and
>>>> elsewhere in the code.
>>>> 2) Simplify and improve Art. 21, as proposed by David M. and others.
>>>> 3) Modify the Preamble along the lines suggested by CBM.
>>>> 4) Delete Note 3.1.1 and consider merging Note 3.1.2 with Art. 3.1
>>>> 5) Reword Art. 9.7 (see my Aug. 27 message for details)
>>>> 6) Reword Rec. 9c (see my Aug. 27 message for details)
>>>> 7) Delete Rec. 11.4B
>>>>
>>>> Did I miss any?
>>>>
>>>> The only one of these for which disagreement has been expressed to
>>>> date is number 7, which David M. disagrees with. How about items 1
>>>> through 6? Does anyone disagree that it is worthwhile for Kevin
>>>> and me to draw up specific wording on these for the CPN to
>>>> consider? I suggest that we set ourselves a deadline of Sunday,
>>>> Sept. 16 for CPN members who disagree with any of these changes to
>>>> say so. Is this procedure OK with everyone? It would be good to
>>>> hear from at least Dave, as CPN chair, but I hope everyone will
>>>> feel free to suggest an alternative way to proceed if you are
>>>> uncomfortable with my suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <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://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120924/d2c01847/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list