[CPN] Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1

[Cantino, Philip]

Dear CPN members,

No one raised any concerns about the proposed new Note that I sent you a week ago (it is attached again to this message).  Michel and David M. have already said that the proposal is fine with them.  Everyone else, please send your vote to approve or reject this new Note.   It would be helpful if you would vote by Monday.

Thank you.

Phil



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Date: February 8, 2013 2:48:09 PM EST
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
Bcc: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Subject: proposed new Note 11.7.1


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130215/13f3a246/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Note 11.7.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: Note 11.7.1.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130215/13f3a246/attachment-0001.doc