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

Mon Sep 16 12:49:53 EDT 2013

Yes, I agree with David M on his comments and hope that the "node" stuff
can be included -- kp

Kevin Padian
Professor and Curator
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Michel Laurin <michel.laurin at upmc.fr>wrote:

>  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>
>  *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>
>
> 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 listCPN at listserv.ohio.eduhttp://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
> FRANCEhttp://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130916/8c0cc51d/attachment.html 