[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9

[Cantino, Philip]

Dear Michel (and other CPN members),

I initially liked Michel’s suggestion, but as I thought more about it, I became concerned about the longevity of the public repository.  Do we want to rely on the continued existence of a repository that we have no control over?  In contrast, the longevity of an image that resides in the RegNum database is fully under the control of the ISPN.  I am not firmly opposed to Michel’s suggestion, but I would like to know what others think.

Phil


> On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:37 AM, Michel LAURIN <michel.laurin at mnhn.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I agree with the proposed revision. However, I think that we could perhaps improve it a little by adding something like this, after this sentence "When a specimen that is not a type is used as a specifier in a phylogenetic definition, either a brief description or an image of the specimen must be provided, sufficient to convey a mental image to a non-specialist and distinguish the specimen from organisms with which it might be confused. " 
> 
> I suggest that we add something like: "If no image is provided but if such an image has been published or is available in public repositories (such as Wikimedia Commons), a reference to such an image, with all the information necessary to retrieve it and identify it unambiguously, must be provided."  The idea is that in some cases, systematists may not feel compelled to provide a new image of the specimen if one exists, but the existence of that image may not be widely known, especially if it is in a small, local publication. I think that if such an image exists, the minimal requirement would be to mention it.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Michel
> 
> ----- Mail d’origine -----
> De: Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu>
> À: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>
> Cc: Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>
> Envoyé: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 02:53:23 +0100 (CET)
> Objet: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
> 
> Dear CPN members,
> 
> When I sent you version 6 of the code last month, I thought it would be the final draft unless the CPN calls for changes.  However, in the process of revising Appendix A (which in itself does not require CPN approval) a concern arose, which our proposed revision of Article 11.9 is intended to address.  
> 
> The attached document also includes two relevant articles in which no changes are proposed (11.7 and 11.8).  For context, it is important to read both of them before considering the proposed changes in Art. 11.9.
> 
> Please look this over soon and send your comments by next Friday (Dec. 21) by replying to this message (reply to all).  I don’t think this will take anyone more than five minutes, so a week seems more than sufficient, but the deadline can be extended if some of you are away from email due to travel.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michel Laurin
> CR2P, UMR 7207
> Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
> Bâtiment de Géologie
> Case postale 48
> 43 rue Buffon
> F-75231 Paris cedex 05
> FRANCE 
> http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
> E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr