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

[Brian Andres]

Accepted.

Ⓑ

On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:

> Kevin and I quickly consulted, and we agree with both of these minor changes proposed by David M.  I have gone ahead and made the changes under the assumption that the rest of the majority of the CPN would concur, but if anyone objects, please let me know; I will interpret lack of response as acceptance.  With this change, Art. 11.8 now reads:  When a specimen that is not a type is used as a specifier in a phylogenetic definition, the institution or collection in which the specifier is conserved must be identified, as well as the collection number or other information needed to identity the specimen unambiguously. 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:06 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
> 
>> Yes to both.
>> 
>> Just... "descendents" near the end of the new Art. 11.7 should probably be spelled "descendants"; at the end of what will be 11.8, I propose replacing "establish the identity of the specimen" by "unambiguously identify the specimen" or "identify the specimen unambiguously", because that sounds clearer to me. Sorry I didn't see this earlier.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPN mailing list
>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130411/f4e28f1e/attachment.html