[CPN] two new sets of changes to consider

[Brian Andres]

I am going to second David M for in approving of all changes except the deletion of "node" from the glossary.

	At the very least, the next definition in the glossary is "node-based definition." 

Best,
Ⓑ

On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:

> Thank you, David M, for a very careful reading of the proposals.  I have corrected the various formatting errors, typos, and missing dates that David pointed out.  (Incidentally, I agree with his "pet peeve" about the period belonging inside the parentheses, but I overlooked it in the spot he pointed out.)
> 
> I will correct the references to various examples of Art. 11.13 if the CPN votes to approve the revision of Art. 11.12-11.14 that you have been considering this week.  Most of David's other suggested changes are not directly related to this set of proposals, so we can delay their consideration until after voting on the current proposals.
> 
> Two points in David's message are relevant to the current set of proposals: deletion of the definition of "node" from the glossary, and clarification of a point he raised about Note 9.7.1.  I sent my recommendation on these two items to Kevin a few minutes ago and am awaiting his reply.  
> 
> Today was the tentative deadline for comments.  If you intend to comment on the proposals I sent last Friday, please either do so today or request an extension.  If I do not hear from anyone by the end of the day, I will call for a vote as soon as Kevin and I decide how we want to address the two issues David raised.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:47 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
> 
>>> I am attaching two sets of proposed changes for your consideration (one of them in two forms--one showing the changes using Track Changes and the other with the changes accepted for ease of reading).  The shorter document (Art. 11.12-11.14) deals with qualifying clauses and other mechanisms that can be used to restrict the application of a name with respect to particular hypotheses of relationship or clade composition.
>> 
>> Art. 11.12, Example 1: In the 4th-to-last line there's "*Multelidae*" instead of *Mustelidae*.
>> Art. 11.13, Example 3: The year of *Podocarpus macrophyllus* (Thunberg) Sweet is missing.
>> Pet peeve alert: At the very end, put the period in front of the closing parenthesis. When you put a whole sentence into parentheses, put the whole sentence, including the period at its end, into parentheses.
>> 
>> Otherwise, I approve.
>> 
>>> The other attached document consists of nearly the entire code  This draft (version 4c2) consists of the current (posted online in 2010) PhyloCode version 4c (excluding the Preface and Index) with the addition of modifications approved by the CPN in a series of votes between September 2012 and August 5, 2013.
>> 
>> I approve of all changes except the deletion of "node" from the glossary; I have not systematically looked for uncorrected cross-references.
>> 
>> There's an extra period between Principles 5 and 6.
>> In Principle 6, I'd like to propose replacing "a given" by "any particular".
>> Note 6.1A1 states that italicizing all taxon names is not consistent with the ICZN. The passage of the ICZN that says only genus and species names should be italicized, however, is "only" General Recommendation 6: "6. The scientific names of genus- or species-group taxa should be printed in a type-face (font) different from that used in the text; such names are usually printed in italics, which should not be used for names of higher taxa. Species¬group names always begin with a lower-case letter, and when cited should always be preceded by a generic name (or an abbreviation of one); names of all supraspecific taxa begin with an upper-case (capital) letter." http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?nfv=&booksection=appendixB
>> Note 9.5.2: "Art. 11.12, example 5", which does not currently exist, will become Art. 11.13, Example 1 under the other proposal.
>> Note 9.6.1: "Art. 11.12, Example 4", which does not currently exist, will become Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal.
>> Note 9.7.1: "An apomorphy-based definition as described in Art. 9.7 necessarily identifies a clade" only if it has only one internal specifier.
>> Art. 9.8: Note 9.8.1 should be indented twice to make clear that the bulleted examples below it belong directly to the Article, not to the Note, and that the Note refers specifically to the example above it. In the first example after the Note, "Art. 11.12, Example 3" will become Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal. I'm confused now, because "Art. 11.12, Example 4" must correspond to the same Example...
>> Art. 9.9: In the second example, "Art. 11.12, Example 3" will become Art. 11.13, Example 2 under the other proposal.
>> Art. 9.10: Replace "Art. 9.10," by "Art. 9.10.".
>> Art. 17.1: I propose deleting "foreign to classical Latin". Not only is it unnecessary, but – I think we had that discussion a few years ago – there is a diacritical sign that was used in Classical Latin, even in stone inscriptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_%28diacritic%29
>> Art. 17.5, taken literally, appears to contradict Art. 17.1 and 17.2.
>> Art. 20: Two Examples use "2010"; that's over...
>> Glossary: The term "node" is still used in the glossary entries for "branch" and "phylogenetic tree", and in the footnote to Art. 9.5 (and 9.6).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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