[CPN] Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
James Doyle
jadoyle at ucdavis.edu
Tue Apr 9 14:43:44 EDT 2013
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
More information about the CPN
mailing list