[CPN] Proposed changes in PhyloCode Article 11.9
George Sangster
g.sangster at planet.nl
Fri Dec 21 17:59:10 EST 2018
Hi Phil,
Same here: OK by me.
George Sangster
Op 21-12-2018 om 22:58 schreef Richard G. Olmstead:
> Phil,
> Reads okay to me.
> Dick
>
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu
>> <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CPN members,
>>
>> The attached second draft of the proposed changes in Art. 11.9
>> incorporates the ideas expressed by Michel and others in our
>> discussion this past week. He, Nico and Kevin have already seen this
>> draft and are comfortable with it. In the absence of any other
>> concerns having been raised by CPN members, Kevin and I will consider
>> this change to be accepted by the CPN. However, if you think a
>> formal vote is needed, please let me know.
>> I wish the best to everyone for the holidays!
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br
>>> <mailto:mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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 <http://agbio.usask.ca/>
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, Rhizosphere
>>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/rhizosphere/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CPN <cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> Cc: Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:deQueirozK at si.edu>>
>>> > À: Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu
>>> <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>, Michel LAURIN <michel.laurin at mnhn.fr
>>> <mailto:michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>>
>>> > Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>>> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>, Max
>>> Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu> on behalf of
>>> cantino at ohio.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
>>> >> À: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
>>> <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
>>> >> Cc: Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php>
>>> >> E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr <mailto:michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CPN mailing list
>>> > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: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
>>> <http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php>
>>> > E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr <mailto:michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto: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
>>> /
>>> //
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /
>>> .
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /
>>> //
>>>
>>
>>
>> <Article 11.9_proposed changes_draft
>> 2.docx>_______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20181221/5edabf81/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPN
mailing list