[CPN] proposed new Note 11.7.1
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Sun Feb 10 16:34:53 EST 2013
This note is fine by me.
Michel
On 08/02/13 20:48, Cantino, Philip wrote:
>
> Dear CPN members,
>
> Although the chairmanship of this committee isn't settled yet, I will
> continue for now as de facto chairperson and send you the next item
> for discussion. I hope everyone--and particularly the three new
> members--had a chance to read the chronology I sent last Friday. No
> one contacted me with any questions, which I suppose is good news
> (though it could just mean that no one read it).
>
> At the end of the chronology was a list of three items the CPN still
> needs to consider before we are done with the revisions that were
> spurred by the CBM proposal regarding species. Here is the first of them.
>
> The addition of a new Note 11.7.1 was stimulated by a point made by
> David Marjanovic in January, when we were discussing the whole set of
> changes on Article 11. Bear in mind that the article this refers to
> is not Art. 11.7 on the current (online) version of the code (version
> 4c), but rather the new Art. 11.7 that the CPN approved on January 22.
> Both the newly approved Art. 11.7 and the proposed Note 11.7.1 are
> included in the attached document.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Here is the relevant email exchange on the listserv concerning Article
> 11.7, and ending with a suggestion that a new note is needed:
>
> Marjanovic: 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?
>
> Cantino: When faced with the situation David describes, many (perhaps
> most) systematists who wanted to name a clade with the new specimen as
> a specifier would either assign it to the previously named species or
> name a new species with that specimen as a type. In either case, the
> type would be used as a specifier. If the researcher thinks the
> specimen does not belong to any previously described species but there
> is some reason not to describe a new species based on it, then this is
> one of the situations where it would be acceptable to use a non-type
> as a specifier. In other words, the rule is working appropriately in
> this situation.
>
> Marjanovic: So it's up to the author of the clade name, and their
> decision can't be challenged later on the grounds that the specifier
> is deemed (by the challenger) to belong to a named species? If so,
> that's fine, but it should be spelled out in a note.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Let's give ourselves a week to think about this. If you have
> comments, please send them to the listserv <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>. If there is no discussion, I'll call
> for a vote next Friday (unless someone else agrees to chair the CPN,
> in which case the timing of the discussion and vote will pass to him
> or her).
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130210/457470f2/attachment.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list