[CPN] Fwd: Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--CALL FOR A VOTE
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Mon Jul 29 14:32:51 EDT 2013
I vote for, even though I still think that there are imprecisions in the
formulation of apomorphy-based definitions...
Michel
On 26/07/13 20:43, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN members,
>
> A new version of the proposal we have been discussing is attached
> (version 4d). This version includes parenthetical references to the
> old terminology, as requested by several of you, and addresses Kevin
> de Q's concern with a new footnote. The missing quotation mark
> pointed out by David has also been corrected.
>
> At this point, I'd like to call for a vote on this set of proposed
> changes. I assume that everyone has read it by now, but I also
> realize that there are various conferences going on right now, not to
> mention fieldwork and vacations, so I think we should give ourselves
> at least ten days. I'm going to set Monday, August 5 as the target
> date to conclude the voting, but if anyone feels this is insufficient
> time, please let me know.
>
> Your vote should be sent to the CPN listserv.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> *Date: *July 25, 2013 9:41:38 AM EDT
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note
>> 9.3.1--COMMENTS DUE BY WEDNESDAY*
>>
>> I don't mind deleting the references to "stem-based", but I agree
>> with Brian, Jim and Michel that the terms node-based and branch-based
>> should be referenced in some way in these articles. I'll have to
>> delay the vote on this set of proposals until Kevin and I discuss
>> this issue and hopefully come up with wording that everyone can live
>> with.
>>
>> Yesterday was the deadline for comments, so I am going to assume that
>> everyone has read the proposal and, in the absence of other comments,
>> the only issue that needs further attention before we vote is the
>> referencing of the terms currently used for these definition types.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"de Queiroz, Kevin" <deQueirozK at si.edu
>>> <mailto:deQueirozK at si.edu>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note
>>> 9.3.1--COMMENTS DUE BY WEDNESDAY*
>>> *Date: *July 24, 2013 3:14:35 PM EDT
>>> *To: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>, Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>>> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>>
>>> Well, as Phil noted, "nothing in a code of rules is ever as simple
>>> as it first appears." I have reservations about these insertions,
>>> because they make it seem as though the pairs of terms are
>>> equivalent (i.e., that the newer terms are simply more accurate
>>> descriptively, but that both sets of terms are names for the same
>>> concepts). In fact, the concepts themselves are not strictly
>>> equivalent. This situation is illustrated by the following
>>> examples: 1) A directly-specified-ancestor definition is a special
>>> case of a minimum-clade definition, but it is not necessarily a
>>> special case of a node-based definition (it could also be
>>> branch-based). 2) A maximum-crown-clade definition is a special
>>> case of a maximum clade definition, but its supposed equivalent, the
>>> branch-modified node-based definition, is a special case of a
>>> node-based (rather than branch-based) definition. Because the
>>> concepts are not strictly equivalent, I think it might cause
>>> unanticipated future confusion to treat them as if they are.
>>>
>>> In addition, even if we decide to include the insertions, I favor
>>> deleting reference to "stem-based definition" and "stem-modified
>>> node-based definition". Those terms go back an additional
>>> generation and probably don't need to be covered here (they are
>>> covered in the Preface). Moreover, they are misleading in that the
>>> term "stem" properly refers to a subset of branches (those that are
>>> parts stem lineages).
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> From: <Cantino>, Phil Cantino <cantino at ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu><mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:44 AM
>>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> Cc: Kevin de Queiroz <dequeirozk at si.edu
>>> <mailto:dequeirozk at si.edu><mailto:dequeirozk at si.edu>>
>>> Subject: Fwd: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--COMMENTS
>>> DUE BY WEDNESDAY
>>>
>>> Dear CPN members,
>>>
>>> In light of the comments from Brian, Jim and Michel, I have modified
>>> the text to insert parenthetical references to the old terms for
>>> these definitions (see attached draft). Kevin and I normally run
>>> drafts by each other before presenting them to the CPN, but this
>>> modification seems uncomplicated (though this is probably a rash
>>> comment on my part, as nothing in a code of rules is ever as simple
>>> as it first appears). To save time, I am sending it to you at the
>>> same time as Kevin receives it. (Kevin, if you could comment on
>>> this quickly, it would be helpful.)
>>>
>>> Others of you who have not commented and wish to, please go ahead
>>> and do so today.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: James Doyle <jadoyle at ucdavis.edu
>>> <mailto:jadoyle at ucdavis.edu><mailto:jadoyle at ucdavis.edu>>
>>> Date: July 23, 2013 9:10:24 PM EDT
>>> To: "cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>"
>>> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> Subject: Re: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--COMMENTS
>>> DUE BY WEDNESDAY
>>>
>>> Hello Phil et al.,
>>>
>>> At the last minute I've finally gone through all the e-mails on
>>> these issues since April. The one thing that has bothered me all
>>> along is Brian's point about continuity of old and new terms. At
>>> first the change in terminology struck me as one of those annoyances
>>> that turn people off to nomenclature of all kinds - first we ask
>>> people to adopt one new set of terms, like node- and branch-based,
>>> and then just when they think they finally understand them we tell
>>> them to forget all about it and adopt a new set, for reasons that
>>> seem exceedingly abstruse (sorry, Kevin). But now I'm coming around
>>> to the notion that the new terms are theoretically better and
>>> self-explanatory enough, actually more so than the old ones, and as
>>> a neo/paleo person I'm relieved that the terms crown clade and total
>>> clade maintain their conspicuous roles. The idea that you'll change
>>> the terminology throughout the companion volume is also a big relief.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I really would feel better if the old terms were
>>> explicitly acknowledged in the text where the new terms are
>>> introduced, not relegated to the glossary, since so many people have
>>> seen the old terms in the literature on phylogenetic nomenclature
>>> and have made efforts to understand them. At the very least this
>>> could be done parenthetically in terms such as "see Glossary for the
>>> relations of these terms to the widely used terms node-based and
>>> branch-based."
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> This is a good point. My understanding is that we editors will be
>>> responsible for changing all the terminology throughout the
>>> companion volume before it is published, so it will not be a
>>> headache for the authors and there will be no discrepancy between
>>> the companion volume and the code. (Kevin, please confirm whether
>>> this is your understanding as well.)
>>>
>>> As for your suggestion that the old terms be mentioned in the new
>>> text for the sake of continuity, since the old (current) terms are
>>> widely known and used, I think the best place to do that might be
>>> the glossary.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Brian Andres wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greetings all,
>>>>
>>>> I like how this section has been fleshed out commensurate to its
>>>> importance. If the proposed changes are voted down, I would suggest
>>>> keeping most of the new text with the old terminology. However, I
>>>> do have one reservation for the proposed changes in terminology. If
>>>> we excise all the node- and branch-based terms, are we going to ask
>>>> all the authors for Companion Volume to rewrite their entries with
>>>> these terms removed? Both the Examples_for_Authors and
>>>> Instructions_for_Authors use these terms, and #5 under Format for
>>>> Entries in the Instructions requires their use. I for one use these
>>>> the old terms seven times in my entries. There is a tradition of
>>>> using this terminology in the literature and previous versions of
>>>> the Code, and I wonder if they should be at least mentioned in the
>>>> discussion of minimum- and maximum-clade definitions for continuity
>>>> and for this discrepancy between the Code and Companion Volume.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> £á
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu
>>>> <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu><mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for spotting the omitted quotation mark. You raise a
>>>>> good point about multiple apomorphies. If I recall correctly, a
>>>>> definition of this type was also used in one of the entries for
>>>>> the companion volume (I was not the lead editor on that one, so I
>>>>> may be mis-remembering). The use of multiple apomorphies is not
>>>>> very different from the use of a single complex apomorphy, which
>>>>> is addressed in Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E. It may well be worth
>>>>> expanding that article and recommendation to cover complex
>>>>> apomorphies as well, or perhaps covering them separately but with
>>>>> wording parallel to that of Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E. I also wonder
>>>>> whether that article and recommendation should be moved up into
>>>>> the section of Article 9 that we are now considering. However,
>>>>> I'd prefer to delay considering these questions until we find out
>>>>> whether the proposal already on the table is approved by the CPN.
>>>>> I'll make a note to myself so I don't forget to come back to this
>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point in Note 9.5.2 about the use of external specifiers for
>>>>>> minimum-clade definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the explanation of apomorphy-modified crown clade definitions,
>>>>>> the quotation mark after "the crown clade characterized by
>>>>>> apomorphy M (relative to other crown clades) as inherited by A"
>>>>>> is missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we explicitly acknowledge the possibility of multiple
>>>>>> apomorphies in an apomorphy-based definition? I've seen at least
>>>>>> one in the literature, along the lines of "the first ancestor
>>>>>> that had all of the following list of apomorphies inherited by A,
>>>>>> plus all its descendants".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all. :-)
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CPN mailing list
>>>>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
>>>>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CPN mailing list
>>>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>>>>> <mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
>>>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CPN mailing list
>>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>>>> <mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
>>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPN mailing list
>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu><mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
>>> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> James A. Doyle
>>> Department of Evolution and Ecology
>>> University of California
>>> Davis, CA 95616, USA
>>> Telephone: 1-530-752-7591; fax: 1-530-752-1449
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPN mailing list
>>> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto: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
--
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130729/6a38c935/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list