[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
Max Langer
mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br
Tue Dec 18 20:54:55 EST 2018
Hi all,
I agree with Michel that sometimes it may be pointless to include a image
that is already broadly known, which will mostly be the case of published
images.
So, my take on this is that we may allow referring to a existing image,
instead of providing an image, but only when this image is a published one.
The rest of the modifications is fine for me.
max
Em ter, 18 de dez de 2018 às 15:11, Adl, Sina <sina.adl at usask.ca> escreveu:
> Thank you Phil,
> I think this type of question, and others we have not thought of, and
> others we have not discussed, will continue to arise from members and users.
> It is probably a good time to start thinking about how to handle queries
> and revisions after publication. A task for the executive to forward
> proposals about committees to handle issues after publication, for the next
> decades. We have a few very different models in existing Codes. I don't
> think, having worked closely with some of them, that any of them are
> effective for the 21st century -- they were not effective at handling
> change at the end of the 20th. Sina
>
> Sina Adl Professor
> Department of Soil Sciences
> College of Agriculture and Bioresources
> University of Saskatchewan
> (306) 966-6866
> agbio.usask.ca
>
> Editor-in-Chief, Rhizosphere
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/rhizosphere/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CPN <cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu> On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 10:31
> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>
> Cc: Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>
> Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I think the discussion may be getting overly broad. Images are not
> required in connection with the vast majority of phylogenetic definitions.
> The article we are considering concerns a narrow situation—the use of
> specimens that are not types as specifiers. For the most part, this
> situation will only arise when one is defining the names of clades within a
> species or a small complex of species (see Art. 11.7). Currently, Art.
> 11.9 requires an author to submit to RegNum a description of a non-type
> specimen used as a specifier. We are proposing to permit an image to be
> submitted instead of a description if the author prefers. However, a
> description will still be an acceptable alternative. In view of Kevin’s
> comments about the availability of non-copyrighted images and the ease with
> which permission would likely be granted to reuse images from museum
> collections, inability to submit an image is likely to be a rare event.
> When it does occur, a description could be submitted instead. I therefore
> don’t think we need to permit reference to an existing image to substitute
> for submitting the image itself.
>
> It would be good to hear from others if they have an opinion on this.
>
> Best regards,
> Phil
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Michel LAURIN <michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Following Phil's and Kevin's messages, with which I agree, I wish to
> clarify that my intention is not to suggest that reference to just any
> image anywhere on the Internet or in any publication is as good as having
> the image uploaded into Regnum and published properly. However, note that
> many journals, even prominent ones like Nature and Systematic Biology have
> an abysmal record of maintaining supplements (they now decline
> responsibility and expect authors to submit these on external repositories
> like Dryad, but even there, the guarantee is that the supplements will be
> maintained 50 years, which is not that long for biological nomenclature).
> So, perhaps it would be worth stating somewhere that such images should be
> in the body of the paper, rather than in supplements, if that is not
> implied by other articles of the code.
> >
> > Back to the main point, I think that publication images of specimens
> should be strongly encouraged, perhaps by a recommendation. But if an
> author does not wish to, or cannot produce an image of the specimen, he
> should at least reference existing images, if some are available. That is
> better than nothing. The text could be developed to clarify this, I
> suppose. I tried to keep it short and simple, but perhaps it was too short
> and too simple.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > ----- Mail d’origine -----
> > De: de Queiroz, Kevin <deQueirozK at si.edu>
> > À: Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu>, Michel LAURIN <
> michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>
> > Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>, Max
> Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>
> > Envoyé: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:05:42 +0100 (CET)
> > Objet: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
> >
> > For images in the Wikimedia Commons, it seems that they may be freely
> reused, so perhaps they could simply be copied and uploaded to Regnum.
> >
> > In the case of images associated with museum collections, permission
> could likely be obtained to reuse the image, although such images will be
> rare for specimens that are not types.
> >
> > In the case of images in publications, if the publication is open
> access, the image could perhaps be uploaded to RegNum. If it is not open
> access, I think it would be acceptable to cite the publication with the
> relevant figure reference.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > On 12/17/18, 11:59 AM, "CPN on behalf of Cantino, Philip" <
> cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu on behalf of cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPN mailing list
> > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Max Cardoso Langer Ph.D. (Bristol, UK)
Departamento de Biologia
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto
Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)
Av. Bandeirantes 3900
14040-901 Ribeirao Preto, SP, BRAZIL
Phone: +55 16 3315 3844
FAX: +55 16 3315 4886
http://sites.ffclrp.usp.br/paleo/
*A semântica é o último refúgio dos canalhas.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20181218/ea283799/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPN
mailing list