[CPN] CPN response to your proposal

[Cantino, Philip]

Dear Nico, David and Brent,

The CPN has finally finished addressing the proposal that you sent us in October, 2011.  I apologize for the length of time it took us to do so.  This was due in part to our having gotten off to a slow start, but it was also due to the complexity of your proposal, which really consisted of a great many separate rule changes united by a central theme.  Consequently, after voting to reject your proposal as an integrated whole in April, 2012, it took us many more months to wade through the many individual threads of your proposal and decide which ones we agreed with.  In doing so, we discovered other things we wanted to change, though often not in the way you originally suggested.

In the attached document, I have used Track Changes to show all of the changes that resulted from consideration of your proposal.

>From a philosophical perspective, I think the most important change--and the most relevant to your initial proposal--is the expansion of the definition of "species" in the glossary, with ramifications elsewhere in the code, to include a broader range of views about the species category.   The definition in the glossary now reads as follows: "species. This term is used both for a kind of biological entity (for example, a population lineage segment) and for the lowest primary rank in traditional nomenclature (and thus also for any taxon assigned to that rank).  This code does not endorse any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, but it uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer to taxa that are used as specifiers in definitions of clade names.  Article 21 provides guidelines for the use of species names governed by the rank-based codes in conjunction with clade names governed by this code."

Consideration of your proposal also resulted in many changes in Art. 11, regarding the use of species as specifiers, and in Art. 21, as well as scattered changes elsewhere in the code.

Although you are probably disappointed that your proposal as a whole was not adopted, I assure you that it was thoroughly considered and resulted in beneficial changes in the code.

With best regards,
Phil


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130416/36a351f3/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PhyloCode4c with CBM-related changes.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 342016 bytes
Desc: PhyloCode4c with CBM-related changes.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130416/36a351f3/attachment-0001.doc