[CPN] Results of vote on new Note 11.7.1

Thu Feb 21 19:00:13 EST 2013

I wholeheartedly agree with Michel.  Thanks, Phil -- kp

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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