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

[Cantino, Philip]

Dear CPN members,

Both changes were approved by a 11-0 vote with one member not voting.  This finally concludes the series of discussions and votes that grew out of the CBM proposal to remove all mention of species from the PhyloCode.  Although their proposal as an integrated whole was rejected, it inspired many changes in the code.  I am in the process of preparing a copy of the code that uses the Track Changes function of Word to show all of the modifications that resulted from the CBM proposal.  When I finish it, probably sometime next week, I will send it to the three authors of that proposal as well as to the CPN.

During the long period (more than a year) that the CPN has been dealing with species-releated issues, Kevin and I have been working on other aspects of the code and have generated a substantial list of proposed changes, some of which arose in the process of dealing with issues that have become apparent in editing Companion Volume entries.  We would like to start with a set of changes that concern the names of the basic kinds of phylogenetic definitions, how we word them, and their standardized abbreviations.  I will send you this set of proposals early next week.

Regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Subject: Call for a vote on deletion of Note 13.2.2 and changes in Rec. 21.3A
Date: April 9, 2013 1:39:37 PM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130413/273a6120/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Rec 21.3A.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: Rec 21.3A.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130413/273a6120/attachment-0002.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Art 11_revisions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34304 bytes
Desc: Art 11_revisions.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130413/273a6120/attachment-0003.doc