[CPN] please vote on deletion of Rec. 11.4B

Tue Sep 25 16:50:31 EDT 2012

NO=Retain Rec. 11.4B

	For pretty much the same reasons Frank delineates. Also the wording  
on the next set of proposed changes looks good, and so I have no  
further comments on those.

Best,
-Bri

On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:59 AM, 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> 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>
>> Date: September 17, 2012 1:05:50 PM EDT
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <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, 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>
>>> Date: September 10, 2012 2:33:09 PM EDT
>>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <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
>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120925/244645b5/attachment.html 