[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[Kevin Padian]

I agree with Brian.  I think people should be scholars and learn how to do
classical names the right way.  It's not rocket science.  We're already
giving them a ton of variably useful instructions.  -- kp


> If no one feels that more discussion is needed..
>
> 1) Yes
> 2) No, but I would vote for the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its
> Example 1 in version two. I would rather have stability of species names
> at the risk of transexual names.
>
> Best,
> Ⓑ
>
> On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:35 PM, "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear CPN members,
>>
>> I am attaching a third revision of the proposed changes in Art. 21.  The
>> two new changes, which were suggested by Jim Doyle, are highlighted in
>> green.
>>
>> I think the only remaining disagreement concerns Note 21A.1 and its
>> Example 1.  The proposed wording discourages changing the ending of a
>> uninomen to agree in gender or number with a clade name it is combined
>> with if that clade name is not also the name of a genus under the
>> appropriate rank-based code.  (Although David M. says that the proposed
>> wording "forbids" changing the ending of a uninomen in this situation,
>> the Note reads more like a recommendation.)
>>
>> I am going to call for a vote now, although if anyone feels that more
>> discussion is needed, please say so.
>>
>> I am asking that everyone vote on two questions:
>> 1) Do you approve the proposed changes to Art. 21, without consideration
>> of Note 21A.1 and its Example 1?
>> 2) Do you approve of the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its Example
>> 1?
>>
>> Please send your responses to the listserv.  Let's give ourselves until
>> the end of the day on Monday (April 1) to vote.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Michel Laurin wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Kevin and Phil on this point. Besides, the number of
>> people
>> > learning Latin is steadily decreasing, right? So soon, very few people
>> > would be able to use Latin grammar (at least, without taking hours to
>> > check rules, roots, endings, and the like).
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Michel
>> >
>> > On 27/03/13 21:44, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:
>> >> Remember also that these combinations of species uninomina with with
>> clade names are not formal "new combinations" as in the rank-based
>> codes.  Using one does not constitute a nomenclatural act.  They are
>> simply, as some people have called them, "clade addresses"--that is,
>> ways of indicating clades to which the species in question belongs.
>> In this context, it makes no sense to change the spelling of the
>> species uninomen to agree (in gender and/or number) with its "clade
>> address", because the uninomen is not an adjective or a possessive
>> modifying the clade name.  Instead, as indicated in Art. 21, it is
>> being treated "as a name in its own right."  In addition, one can
>> list as many of these "clade addresses" as one wishes, and it will
>> often be impossible for the uninomen to agree with all of them.
>> >>
>> >> Kevin
>> >> ________________________________________
>> >> From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [cantino at ohio.edu]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:50 PM
>> >> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>> >> Subject: Re: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21
>> >>
>> >> David, I disagree with you on this point.  I think that pluralizing
>> uninomina to agree with plural clade names will create unnecessary
>> confusion for readers.  To me, the main reason for changing the
>> gender to match a clade name that is also a genus name is to avoid
>> unnecessary divergence from the way users of the rank-based code are
>> spelling combinations involving the same pair of names.
>> >>
>> >> Phil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:11 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> I think you are misinterpreting  Note 21A.1.  The note begins "When
>> a
>> >>>> species uninomen is combined with a clade name that is not also a
>> >>>> genus..."  This is the only situation the Note refers to in saying
>> >>>> that the ending of the uninomen should not be changed to agree in
>> >>>> gender or number.  If a uninomen is combined with the name of a
>> clade
>> >>>> that is also a genus, the last sentence in the Note doesn't apply.
>> >>>> [...] Would adding that qualification resolve the
>> >>>> problem you are seeing in the current wording?
>> >>> No. I think agreement with non-genus names should be optional as
>> well;
>> >>> according to the new Note 21A.1, it is outright forbidden.
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> CPN mailing list
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CPN mailing list
>> >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>> >> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michel Laurin
>> > UMR 7207
>> > Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
>> > Bâtiment 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
>>
>> <Art 21 proposed changes
>> vers.3.doc>_______________________________________________
>> CPN mailing list
>> 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
>


-- 
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