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

[Richard Olmstead]

I think I expressed my approval last week, but just to be sure, I vote yes and yes.

Dick


On Apr 9, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Cantino, Philip wrote:

> Dear CPN members,
> 
> 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?
> 2) Should the proposed changes in Rec. 21.3A Example 1 and Note 21.3A.1 be adopted?
> 
> Please vote by the end of the day on Friday (April 12).
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu>
>> Date: April 2, 2013 10:50:10 AM EDT
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> <Rec 21.3A.doc><Art 11_revisions.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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130409/3883cfb5/attachment.html