[CPN] Rec. 21.3A

[Cantino, Philip]

I wasn't actually calling for a vote yet, but I'll note that Kevin P. and Dick O. voted yes.  Others might want to wait to see if there is any discussion before voting.  
Phil


On Apr 3, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Kevin Padian wrote:

> me too -- kp
> 
> 
>> I vote yes.  seems simple enough.
>> 
>> D
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Cantino, Philip wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear CPN members,
>>> 
>>> On Monday, while voting on the changes in Art. 21, Andy raised "a minor
>>> quibble" about Rec. 21.3A (that part of his message is copied below).
>>> Kevin and I agree with him and have drafted the attached proposed change
>>> in Rec. 21.3A and Note 21.3A.1.  Because the text we used as a starting
>>> point already includes changes that were approved this week by the CPN
>>> (shown with boldface and strikethrough font), we used Track Changes to
>>> show the new proposed revisions.  In addition to adopting Andy's
>>> suggestion, we changed the symbol designating established clade names
>>> from the copyright symbol © to [P] for consistency with Rec. 6.1B,
>>> Example 1.  However, we used [nP] instead of [R], even though the latter
>>> is used in Rec. 6.1B Example 1 to indicate names governed by rank-based
>>> codes, because in Rec. 21.3A, [nP] signifies something different--it
>>> indicates that the name is not an established clade name, regardless
>>> whether it is governed by the rank-based codes.
>>> 
>>> If the CPN approves these revisions, we will make corresponding changes
>>> throughout Art. 21 in the symbols used to indicate whether or not a name
>>> is an established clade name.
>>> 
>>> Although I generally prefer that the CPN address one issue at a time,
>>> this one seems sufficiently simple, and hopefully uncontroversial, that
>>> I am going to ask for discussion (if any) on it at the same time as you
>>> are considering the deletion of Note 13.2.2, which I sent you yesterday.
>>> 
>>> If discussion is minimal or seems to have ended, I will call for a vote
>>> on both questions next Tuesday.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Frank Anderson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> <Rec 21.3A.doc>_______________________________________________
>>> CPN mailing list
>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>> 
>> Richard Olmstead
>> Professor of Biology and Herbarium Curator, Burke Museum
>> Department of Biology
>> Box 355325
>> University of Washington
>> Seattle, WA 98195
>> 
>> office: 423 Hitchcock Hall
>> phone: 206-543-8850
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
>