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

Mon Sep 23 14:19:44 EDT 2013

Dear CPN members,

It is disappointing that four of you didn't vote, but the proposals were approved 8-0.

As you know, ISPN elections are now in progress, and consequently the composition of the CPN will change to some degree as of next Tuesday (Oct. 1).  I plan to send a set of proposals for CPN consideration in early October. These do not revolve around any single theme, as some past sets of proposals did.  They are an assortment of changes that have been proposed over the past couple of years by Kevin, myself, or other CPN members.

I'd like to thank the four CPN members whose terms are ending (though two of them are on the ballot for another term): Kevin de Queiroz, Jacques Gauthier, Dick Olmstead, and Kevin Padian.

Best regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Date: September 19, 2013 3:05:38 PM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
Subject: Fwd: Calling for a Vote on 2 sets of changes sent to you Sept. 6

Dear CPN members,

Just a reminder: Please vote by the end of the day tomorrow.  At this point, 7 people (including myself) have voted.

Thank you.

Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Date: September 15, 2013 7:50:24 PM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
Subject: Calling for a Vote on 2 sets of changes sent to you Sept. 6

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130923/ddc5331b/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PhyloCode4c2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 346624 bytes
Desc: PhyloCode4c2.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130923/ddc5331b/attachment-0002.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Art. 11.12-11.14 with DM's corrections.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53248 bytes
Desc: Art. 11.12-11.14 with DM's corrections.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130923/ddc5331b/attachment-0003.doc 