[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[Michel Laurin]

Hi,

     I agree with both points 1 and 2 below.

     Michel

On 28/03/13 21:35, Cantino, Philip 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn


-- 
Michel Laurin
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/20130329/eac54f03/attachment.html