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

[Kevin Padian]

I do as well -- kp


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>


-- 
Kevin Padian
Department of Integrative Biology &
Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140
510-642-7434
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php