[CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21

[Frank Anderson]

I apologize for waiting until the last minute...too overwhelmed with other stuff to comment until now.

On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Cantino, Philip wrote:

> 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?

Yes, but see below for a minor quibble.

> 2) Do you approve of the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its Example 1?

Yes.

Minor quibble -- I find it a bit odd that after Recommendation 21.3A, we give two examples -- one in which we use (C) to indicate a name is an established clade name (while leaving the (C) off means it isn't established) or (R) to indicate that is not an established clade name (while leaving the (R) off means that it is established) -- but then add a note to the effect that it might be better to use both (C) and (R), just to avoid ambiguity.  Why not just have one example in which both (C) and (R) are used as described in Examples 1 and 2 (to denote that something is or is not an established clade name, respectively) and have a note that says something to the effect of "But if you really want to just denote one type of name with a symbol and denote the other type by just not using that symbol, you can do that, too".  It seems we have a clear preference here to use both (C) and (R) (or some equivalent convention)...why not use that as the example?

Cheers,
Andy

**************************************************
Frank E. (Andy) Anderson
Editor-Elect, Systematic Biology
Department of Zoology
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901 USA
www.zoology.siu.edu/people/anderson.html
**************************************************



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130401/33047c93/attachment.html