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

[Michel LAURIN]

I vote yes to both.

Michel

Quoting "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu>:

> 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<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
> Date: April 2, 2013 10:50:10 AM EDT
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature  
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.