[CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Thu Feb 21 16:39:54 EST 2013
Hi all,
Personally, I am very happy that Phil is willing to continue to
lead these discussions. He does it well, and I sure don't have the time
to do it; my responsibilities keep piling up, and I will have to step
down from some committees, I think (I don't necessarily mean some in the
ISPN). So while I intend to continue serving the ISPN as best I can, I
sure cannot take more responsibilities now.
Cheers,
Michel
On 21/02/13 19:53, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> In the absence of a flood of volunteers (or any, for that matter) to
> chair this committee, I am going to continue acting as the de facto
> chairman. If anyone is uncomfortable with this or with any aspect of
> how I am facilitating discussion and calling votes, please do say so.
> The last thing I want to do is be heavy handed in running the CPN,
> but I do want us to continue moving forward steadily. There is a
> backlog of issues to discuss and vote on.
>
> Although not everyone has voted on Note 11.7.1, the outcome is not in
> doubt, so I think we should move on. The vote is 9 in favor, 0
> against, 1 declared abstention, and two members who did not respond to
> the call for a vote. The new Note will therefore be adopted.
>
> I will soon send the CPN the next items for consideration.
>
> Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> *Date: *February 19, 2013 2:44:17 PM EST
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1*
>>
>> Dear CPN members,
>>
>> Nine of you have now voted (in some cases the vote was sent just to
>> me rather than to the listserv). We have not yet heard from Jacques,
>> Nico, and David Hillis. If you plan to vote, please do so by the end
>> of the day tomorrow so we can move on to other matters. Thank you.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>>> *Date: *February 18, 2013 11:12:35 AM EST
>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> *Subject: **Fwd: Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1*
>>>
>>> Only two CPN members have voted on this since Friday--five total so
>>> far. I hope the other seven of you will vote soon. There is
>>> another item of business from our discussions last year that I'd
>>> like to return to as soon as we complete this vote.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>>>> *Date: *February 15, 2013 11:08:31 AM EST
>>>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>>> *Subject: **Vote requested on proposed new Note 11.7.1*
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130221/1e23b883/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list