<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Dear CPN members,</div><div><br></div><div>Although two people have not voted, the revisions of Article 11 that I sent you on January 2 have been approved by a vote of 10-0. There are still a couple of items of business to complete that grew out of the CB&M proposal to remove all mention of species from the code. The most important (and difficult!) of these is a revision of Article 21. However, before we launch into the next task, we need to add the newly elected members to our listserv. In case any of you did not receive Michel's announcement of election results, the new CPN members are David Hillis, Jim Doyle, Brian Andres (re-elected), and Nico Cellinese. The members whose terms have expired are Walter Joyce, David Tank and Mike Keesey. Thank you for your service!</div><div><br></div><div>After I add the new members to the listserv and check that they are indeed receiving messages, I will summarize for everyone where we are on the decisions related to the CB&M proposal (which have now occupied us for more than a year!) and what still remains to be done.</div><div><br></div><div>Phil</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Cantino, Philip wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Seven of us have voted on the revisions I sent to the CPN on January 2. Those who have not yet voted are Jacques G., Mike K., David M., David T., and Dick O. Please vote by Monday.<div>Phil<br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">"Cantino, Philip" <<a href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu">cantino@ohio.edu</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">January 16, 2013 10:33:15 AM EST<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <<a href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;"><b>Re: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE</b><br></span></div><br><div>Dear CPN members,<br><br>It would be helpful if everyone would vote this week. There has been plenty of time to read the revisions (sent to you on Jan. 2).<br><br>Phil<br><br><br>On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:25 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Perhaps this goes without saying given that I am one of the people proposing the changes, but I vote to approve the proposed revisions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Kevin<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: <Cantino>, Phil Cantino <cantino@ohio.edu<<a href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu">mailto:cantino@ohio.edu</a>>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:19 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn@listserv.ohio.edu<<a href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: [CPN] Fwd: Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In the absence of a reply from David or comments from anyone else, I think it is time to vote on this.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Unless someone objects by tomorrow and asks for more discussion, please start voting tomorrow on the proposed revisions of Article 11 that I sent to the CPN on January 2.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Phil<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Begin forwarded message:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino@ohio.edu<<a href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu">mailto:cantino@ohio.edu</a>>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: January 7, 2013 9:29:56 AM EST<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn@listserv.ohio.edu<<a href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">David,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Can you elaborate, perhaps with an example, how the use of different species criteria by different biologists would cause problems in the context of this rule? The objective of the rule is to prohibit the use of non-type specimens as specifiers when a type could be used instead. Differences in species criteria may certainly result in a particular specimen being referred to different species by different people, but can it result in a biologist concluding that the specimen can't be assigned to any named species? Note that the wording does not require that the biologist who is using the specimen as a specifier be the person who named the species or even that he/she accept the premise that species exist.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I said I would initiate the vote today if no one objected to the timeline, but I'll hold off doing so until we finish discussing the issue David has raised.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Did no one else have any comments on the proposed revisions that I sent on January 2?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Phil<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:55 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">These proposals are probably good enough in practice. The only possible<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">exception is in the proposed Art. 11.7: whether a specimen "cannot be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">referred to a named species" will sometimes, perhaps often, depend on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the species criteria. What do you all think?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">CPN mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu<<a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>