[CPN] PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

[Walter Joyce]

I also vote in favor of the proposed changes.

All the best,

Walter


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:

>  Dear CPN members,
>
>  Only five of us have voted on the set of proposed changes I sent the
> listserv on Monday (attached again to this message).  I suggested today as
> the deadline, but since less than half the committee has voted, this was
> clearly insufficient time.  Please send your vote by next Tuesday (Nov. 6),
> election day here in the U.S.  The following people have NOT yet voted:
> Anderson, Andres, Gauthier, Joyce, Marjanovic, Olmstead, and Tank.
>
>  Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu>
>  *Date: *October 29, 2012 11:19:46 AM EDT
>  *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>
>  *Subject: **Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals*
>
>  Folks,
>
> This is a worthwhile discussion that should definitely be continued, but I
> realize now that I made a mistake in even including the glossary definition
> of Taxon in this round of voting.  This was the one entry in David's Sept.
> 29 set of comments that I suggested we postpone because it will take a
> while to work through the many uses of the term "taxon" in the code.  In my
> Oct. 24 message in which I inserted replies to David's comments, I noted
> that we agreed to defer voting on the glossary definition of Taxon---but I
> unfortunately forgot to remove this item from the list of changes that we
> are voting on right now.  My apologies for the confusion!
>
> The attached document is identical to the one I sent you on Friday except
> that I have deleted the glossary definition of Taxon as one that we are
> voting on at this time.  I am not trying to suppress discussion of this
> item.  We will return to this and related changes in the code (and also
> revision of Art. 21), but after many months of discussion, I think it is
> best that we vote on the several changes that no one has expressed
> disagreement about.
>
> I suggested on Friday that we call a vote on this set of changes today if
> there were no comments by Sunday and if no one objected to this schedule.
> No one has objected to the schedule, and the only comments are on the
> glossary definition of Taxon, so let's please vote on the other changes
> (attached).  Please send your vote to this listserv by this Friday (Nov.
> 2).  [If someone feels this is insufficient time in which to vote, please
> say so, but we have been discussing the CBM proposal for months.]
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:
>
> > When it comes to the definition of "clade", it's a bit over-simplified
> to declare that other people are simply wrong.  They would argue that the
> definition of "clade" is "an ancestral _species_ and all of its
> descendants".  Moreover, some of them might also argue that it is useful to
> distinguish terminologically between groups composed of an ancestor and all
> of its descendants that conform (more or less) to a nested hierarchical
> pattern (species, uniparental organisms) and those that do not (biparental
> organisms).
> >
> > Kevin
> > ________________________________________
> > From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu] On
> Behalf Of David Marjanovic [david.marjanovic at gmx.at]
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:29 AM
> > To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
> > Subject: Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals
> >
> >> I do not favor Mike's proposed  revision (of the definition of
> >> "taxon") for the following reason: some people view clades/higher
> >> taxa not as monophyletic groups of organisms but as monophyletic
> >> groups of species.
> >
> > They're wrong. "Clade" = "an ancestor and all its descendants", even if
> > that's a small part of a species or partially overlaps with one or
> > several species. The PhyloCode allows the naming of LITUs, as it should.
> >
> > Besides, under most species concepts, not only are "speciation" and
> > "cladogenesis" not synonyms*, but neither is even a subset of the other;
> > inevitably, then, clades will usually contain entire species and parts
> > of other species under those species concepts.
> >
> > * Although lots of people, even in the primary literature, use
> > "speciation" when they mean "cladogenesis". It's as if almost nobody
> > even knew the latter term.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
>


-- 
Dr. Walter Joyce
Institut für Geowissenschaften
University of Tübingen
Sigwartstr. 10
72070 Tübingen
+49 (0) 7071 - 2978930
walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de
http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/arbeitsgruppen/palaeobiologie/biogeologie/people/dr-walter-g-joyce.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20121105/1ed3333f/attachment.html