[CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--USE THIS VERSION INSTEAD
Michel LAURIN
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Fri Jul 5 07:40:14 EDT 2013
Dear Phil et al.,
Indeed, I am currently in Lisbon, hence the delay. I have inserted a
few comments and suggestions (using tracked changes) in the attached
version (I hope that I used the latest version because Phil's message
seemed to include two slightly different versions).
Cheers,
Michel
Quoting "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu>:
> Dear CPN members,
>
> The version of the Note 9.3.1 reorganization that I sent you
> yesterday included some notes to ourselves and to David that I
> forgot to delete. More importantly, I forgot to add some related
> changes in Articles 2 and 11 from a separate document. Please
> discard the version I sent you yesterday and use the one attached to
> this message instead.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
> Date: July 3, 2013 1:49:52 PM EDT
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1
>
> Dear CPN members,
>
> You were probably beginning to wonder if I had dropped off the face
> of the earth, since I told you in mid-May that I would be able to
> send a revised proposal by early June. Here it is at last, though
> you may not immediately recognize it as fundamentally the same
> proposal you looked over in April.
>
> Partly in response to David Marjanovic's May 1 comments about the
> last version of our proposal, and partly out of Kevin's and my own
> feelings that it is inappropriate for something that is as central
> to the PhyloCode as phylogenetic definitions to be covered in a
> complex Note, Kevin took the initiative to draft an expansion of
> Note 9.3.1 into a series of articles. After he and I did some
> fine-tuning, we sent it to David M. for comments. David suggested
> several changes, most of which we adopted, and in some cases
> expanded on. Because all three of us (Kevin, David and I) were slow
> to respond at various stages in this process due to other
> responsibilities, it has taken longer than I expected. Although the
> resulting set of rules and notes is considerably longer than Note
> 9.3.1, this is not inappropriate given the importance of this
> section, which is likely to be the most frequently consulted portion
> of the code.
>
> These rules include some references to other articles, some of which
> are numbered differently than in the current version of the code
> because of changes that have already been approved by the CPN or
> will be necessary if this expansion of Note 9.3.1 is adopted.
> Specifically, Arts. 9.4 - 9.9 are the new articles included here.
> Art 9.10 cited here is Art. 9.4 in the current online version of the
> code. Art. 11.12, cited here is Art. 11.9 in the current code.
>
> With many CPN members likely to be traveling during the summer, we
> should give ourselves enough time so that everyone can read the
> proposed changes carefully. I suggest July 24 (three weeks) as a
> target date to send comments, but please let me know if your plans
> for this period make it difficult for you to do so in that time
> frame. I am not asking for any voting at this time. Please send
> your comments to the listserv, not to me personally.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
> Date: May 13, 2013 2:49:40 PM EDT
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
>
> Dear CPN members,
>
> Although I had hoped to be able to generate a new revision of the
> proposals related to Note 9.3.1 last week, it is not ready. Kevin
> and I worked on it via email last week and came up with wording we
> are both comfortable with on some issues, but we haven't had time
> yet to consider all of the aspects of David M's proposed
> reorganization of that Note (and related matters in that message).
> Unfortunately, I am leaving town on Wednesday for nine days and will
> not be dealing with CPN business during that period, so it is going
> to have to wait a few weeks. I will do my best to get to it soon
> after I return, but realistically, I think it is likely to be late
> May or early June before we can send you a revised proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
> Date: May 3, 2013 2:08:01 PM EDT
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
>
> Dear CPN members,
>
> Quite a few changes were suggested on Wednesday, and it may take a
> while for Kevin and me to work through them by email and generate a
> new revision of the original set of proposals. I hope to be able to
> send it to you by the middle of next week but it could be later.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Michel Laurin <michel.laurin at upmc.fr<mailto:michel.laurin at upmc.fr>>
> Date: May 1, 2013 8:20:20 PM EDT
> To: "cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>"
> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is late, but I will be busy with something else tomorrow
> (technically, later today because it is 2:20AM), so I just want to
> add that after reading Kevin's and David's comments, with which I
> agree (at least at first glance), if the changes outlined by both
> are done, I think that I will feel comfortable voting for the
> amendment.
>
> Good night,
>
> Michel
>
> On 02/05/13 02:10, David Marjanovic wrote:
> The entire text of the version I propose follows. Because it is so
> different from the current wording, I have not marked additions and
> deletions, except where I propose to delete entire paragraphs.
>
> =================================
>
> Note 9.3.1. The definition of "clade" is "an ancestor (an organism,
> population, or species) and all of its descendants" (Art. 2.1).
> Building on this definition, clade names can be defined by pointing
> at such an ancestor, creating a phylogenetic definition. This can be
> done in different ways, such as the following:
>
> * The ancestor can be mentioned directly in an ancestor-based
> definition: "A and all its descendants", where A is a specific
> organism, population, or species.
> * Usually, however, the intended ancestor is not directly known.
> Thus, the ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more
> specifiers (Art. 11) that are mentioned directly:
> * A minimum-clade definition [note the hyphen which makes
> clear that the clade, not the definition, is a minimum] may take the
> form [...]
> * A maximum-clade definition may take the form [...]
> * An apomorphy-based definition may take the form [...]
> * The ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more
> specifiers that are not mentioned directly, but described as members
> of another clade that fulfill certain criteria. Such definitions may
> first describe an unnamed clade and then use its extant members (or
> those fulfilling another criterion) as specifiers for a
> minimum-clade definition:
> * A maximum-modified crown clade definition [note the addition
> of "-modified" to avoid confusion because crown clades are minimum
> clades] may take the form [...]
> * An apomorphy-modified crown clade definition may take the form [...]
> * A crown clade in its entirety, mentioned by name, can be the
> internal specifier in the definition of the name of a total clade
> under the conditions specified in Art. 10.5. [This fact contradicts
> a claim in Note 11.1.2.]
>
> [deletion of the two paragraphs that follow this list in the
> proposal we're currently discussing]
>
> The above list is not exhaustive. Most importantly, definitions may
> contain qualifying clauses that restrict their applications to
> specific phylogenetic hypotheses (Art. 11.9).
>
> The system of abbreviations used here [...]
>
> For abbreviations involving qualifying clauses, see Note 11.9.1.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michel Laurin
> UMR 7207
> Mus?um National d?Histoire Naturelle
> Batiment de G?ologie
> Case postale 48
> 43 rue Buffon
> F-75231 Paris cedex 05
> FRANCE
> http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Note 9.3.1 to Articles Version4a.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.word
Size: 32812 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130705/ecc1ec3f/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the CPN
mailing list