[CPN] PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

Tue Nov 6 12:17:38 EST 2012

Phil -

Thanks for adding the "Please Vote" to the subject line. I've been busy and anticipated waiting until we were called to vote before reading through the emails.  

Now I have read through everything and I vote "YES" to approve the recommended changes.

Dick

On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Cantino, Philip 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
> 
> <CBM-related changes_4.doc>_______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

Richard Olmstead
Professor of Biology and Herbarium Curator, Burke Museum
Department of Biology
Box 355325
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

office: 423 Hitchcock Hall
phone: 206-543-8850

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20121106/39879587/attachment.html 