[CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE

[Michel Laurin]

Dear colleagues,

I vote for this amendment.

Cheers,

Michel

On 16/01/13 16:33, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN members,
>
> It would be helpful if everyone would vote this week.  There has been plenty of time to read the revisions (sent to you on Jan. 2).
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:25 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this goes without saying given that I am one of the people proposing the changes, but I vote to approve the proposed revisions.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> From: <Cantino>, Phil Cantino <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:19 PM
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> Subject: [CPN] Fwd: Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE
>>
>> In the absence of a reply from David or comments from anyone else, I think it is time to vote on this.
>>
>> Unless someone objects by tomorrow and asks for more discussion, please start voting tomorrow on the proposed revisions of Article 11 that I sent to the CPN on January 2.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> Date: January 7, 2013 9:29:56 AM EST
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11
>>
>> 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<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
>


-- 
Michel Laurin
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