<HTML><HEAD><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></HEAD><BODY>
<div class="BodyFragment">
<font size="2"><div class="PlainText"><br>
Dear CPN members,<br>
<br>
I am attaching a third revision of the proposed changes in Art. 21. The two new changes, which were suggested by Jim Doyle, are highlighted in green.<br>
<br>
I think the only remaining disagreement concerns Note 21A.1 and its Example 1. The proposed wording discourages changing the ending of a uninomen to agree in gender or number with a clade name it is combined with if that clade name is not also the name of a genus under the appropriate rank-based code. (Although David M. says that the proposed wording "forbids" changing the ending of a uninomen in this situation, the Note reads more like a recommendation.)<br>
<br>
I am going to call for a vote now, although if anyone feels that more discussion is needed, please say so. <br>
<br>
I am asking that everyone vote on two questions:<br>
1) Do you approve the proposed changes to Art. 21, without consideration of Note 21A.1 and its Example 1?<br>
2) Do you approve of the proposed wording of Note 21A.1 and its Example 1?<br>
<br>
Please send your responses to the listserv. Let's give ourselves until the end of the day on Monday (April 1) to vote.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Phil<br>
<br>
</div></font>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment">
<font size="2"><div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Michel Laurin wrote:<br>
<br>
> I agree with Kevin and Phil on this point. Besides, the number of people <br>
> learning Latin is steadily decreasing, right? So soon, very few people <br>
> would be able to use Latin grammar (at least, without taking hours to <br>
> check rules, roots, endings, and the like).<br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> <br>
> Michel<br>
> <br>
> On 27/03/13 21:44, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:<br>
>> Remember also that these combinations of species uninomina with with clade names are not formal "new combinations" as in the rank-based codes. Using one does not constitute a nomenclatural act. They are simply, as some people have called them, "clade addresses"--that is, ways of indicating clades to which the species in question belongs. In this context, it makes no sense to change the spelling of the species uninomen to agree (in gender and/or number) with its "clade address", because the uninomen is not an adjective or a possessive modifying the clade name. Instead, as indicated in Art. 21, it is being treated "as a name in its own right." In addition, one can list as many of these "clade addresses" as one wishes, and it will often be impossible for the uninomen to agree with all of them.<br>
>> <br>
>> Kevin<br>
>> ________________________________________<br>
>> From: cpn-bounces@listserv.ohio.edu [cpn-bounces@listserv.ohio.edu] On Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [cantino@ohio.edu]<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:50 PM<br>
>> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature<br>
>> Subject: Re: [CPN] Revision of proposed changes in Art. 21<br>
>> <br>
>> David, I disagree with you on this point. I think that pluralizing uninomina to agree with plural clade names will create unnecessary confusion for readers. To me, the main reason for changing the gender to match a clade name that is also a genus name is to avoid unnecessary divergence from the way users of the rank-based code are spelling combinations involving the same pair of names.<br>
>> <br>
>> Phil<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:11 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>>> I think you are misinterpreting Note 21A.1. The note begins "When a<br>
>>>> species uninomen is combined with a clade name that is not also a<br>
>>>> genus..." This is the only situation the Note refers to in saying<br>
>>>> that the ending of the uninomen should not be changed to agree in<br>
>>>> gender or number. If a uninomen is combined with the name of a clade<br>
>>>> that is also a genus, the last sentence in the Note doesn't apply.<br>
>>>> [...] Would adding that qualification resolve the<br>
>>>> problem you are seeing in the current wording?<br>
>>> No. I think agreement with non-genus names should be optional as well;<br>
>>> according to the new Note 21A.1, it is outright forbidden.<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> CPN mailing list<br>
>>> CPN@listserv.ohio.edu<br>
>>> <a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br>
>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CPN mailing list<br>
>> CPN@listserv.ohio.edu<br>
>> <a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br>
>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CPN mailing list<br>
>> CPN@listserv.ohio.edu<br>
>> <a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Michel Laurin<br>
> UMR 7207<br>
> Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle<br>
> Bâtiment de Géologie <br>
> Case postale 48<br>
> 43 rue Buffon<br>
> F-75231 Paris cedex 05<br>
> FRANCE<br>
> <a href="http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php">http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CPN mailing list<br>
> CPN@listserv.ohio.edu<br>
> <a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br>
<br>
</div></font>
</div>
</BODY></HTML>