[CPN] Calling for a Vote on 2 sets of changes sent to you Sept. 6

Michel Laurin michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Mon Sep 16 02:14:24 EDT 2013 

Dear colleagues,

     I approve the changes.

     Michel

On 16/09/13 01:50, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> Dear CPN members,
>
> In the absence of any more comments, I am calling for a vote on 
> slightly modified versions of the two sets of proposed code changes I 
> sent you on Sept. 6.   The only difference between the attached 
> versions and the Sept. 6 ones is that David M's corrections of typos, 
> formatting, etc. have been incorporated.  Kevin and I also agree with 
> his recommendation that "node" be retained in the glossary, and that 
> Note 9.7.1 be modified to say that an apomorphy-based definition 
> necessarily identifies a clade provided that there is only one 
> internal specifier.  Those changes from the Sept. 6 proposals are also 
> incorporated in the attached document PhyloCode4c2.
>
> I interpret David M's and Brian's comments as a YES vote on the 
> attached versions, unless they tell me otherwise.  Everyone else, 
> please vote by this Friday (Sept. 20) by responding to all.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>> *Subject: **Re: [CPN] two new sets of changes to consider*
>> *Date: *September 13, 2013 4:08:04 PM EDT
>> *To: *Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>> <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>
>> 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 <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/20130916/9ecca9e9/attachment.html

More information about the CPN mailing list