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

[Walter Joyce]

Phil,

I also approve the proposed changes.

All the best for the New Year!

Walter


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> 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
>



-- 
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/20130116/64c2b3fd/attachment.html