[CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11

[Cantino, Philip]

David, 

Can you elaborate, perhaps with an example, how the use of different species criteria by different biologists would cause problems in the context of this rule?  The objective of the rule is to prohibit the use of non-type specimens as specifiers when a type could be used instead.  Differences in species criteria may certainly result in a particular specimen being referred to different species by different people, but can it result in a biologist concluding that the specimen can't be assigned to any named species?  Note that the wording does not require that the biologist who is using the specimen as a specifier be the person who named the species or even that he/she accept the premise that species exist.  

I said I would initiate the vote today if no one objected to the timeline, but I'll hold off doing so until we finish discussing the issue David has raised.

Did no one else have any comments on the proposed revisions that I sent on January 2?

Phil


On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:55 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:

> These proposals are probably good enough in practice. The only possible 
> exception is in the proposed Art. 11.7: whether a specimen "cannot be 
> referred to a named species" will sometimes, perhaps often, depend on 
> the species criteria. What do you all think?
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn