[CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A

[James Doyle]

Hello Phil,

>There was no discussion of either of the code modifications I sent 
>you last week, so I am now calling for a vote.  The rationale for 
>the proposed deletion of Note 13.2.2 was presented in my April 2 
>message, copied below.  The proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 
>and Note 21.3A.1 were sent to you April 3 and are attached to this 
>message as well.
>
>Please send your votes to the listserv on the following questions:
>1) Should Note 13.2.2 be deleted?

Yes

>2) Should the proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 and Note 
>21.3A.1 be adopted?

Yes (assuming "P" stands for "PhyloCode" or "Phylogenetic" - if I'm 
confused about this, there may be a problem)

Jim

>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: "Cantino, Philip" <<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>cantino at ohio.edu>
>>
>>Date: April 2, 2013 10:50:10 AM EDT
>>
>>To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature 
>><<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>
>>
>>Subject: Proposed deletion of Note 13.2.2
>>
>>
>>Dear CPN members,
>>
>>There is still another item of business that relates to species. 
>> This is something we overlooked in our discussion of the CBM 
>>proposal; it concerns Note 13.2.2.
>>
>>Art. 13.2 and Note 13.2.2 currently read:
>>
>>13.2. Phylogenetic definitions are considered to be different if 
>>either: 1) they are of the same kind (e.g., node-based, 
>>branch-based, etc.) but cite different specifiers and/or have 
>>different restrictions specified in their qualifying clauses (if 
>>any), or 2) they are of a different kind.
>>
>>Note 13.2.2.  A species and its type specimen are considered to be 
>>the same specifier (see Note 11.1.1).
>>
>>
>>Note 11.1.1, which is referred to in Note 13.2.2, was changed by 
>>CPN vote in January (see the attached changes in Art. 11 that were 
>>approved by the CPN).  Before these changes were approved, Note 
>>11.1.1 read as follows  (i.e., in version 4c, currently still 
>>online): "When a species is cited as a specifier, the implicit 
>>specifier is the type of that species name (if a type has been 
>>designated) under the appropriate rank-based code."
>>
>>The concept of an implicit specifier was removed from the code when 
>>the CPN revised Art. 11.  With the changes that have been approved 
>>in Art. 11, a definition that uses a species name as a specifier 
>>and another definition that uses the type specimen of that species 
>>would be considered different under Art. 13.2 because they have 
>>different specifiers.  An indication that they are truly different 
>>is that the consequences of their use differ under certain 
>>situations discussed in new Arts. 11.4 and 11.6.   Kevin and I are 
>>therefore recommending that Note 13.2.2 be deleted.
>>
>>Let's give ourselves until Monday to discuss this.  If the 
>>discussion appears to have ended by then, I will call for a vote 
>>next Tuesday.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Phil

-- 
James A. Doyle
Department of Evolution and Ecology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616, USA
Telephone:  1-530-752-7591; fax:  1-530-752-1449
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130409/54af32f2/attachment.html