<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body>
<div style="">Dear CPN members,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is still another item of business that relates to species. This is something we overlooked in our discussion of the CBM proposal; it concerns Note 13.2.2.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font class="x_Apple-style-span" face="Arial">Art. 13.2 and Note 13.2.2 currently read:</font></div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><font class="x_Apple-style-span" face="Arial">13.2. Phylogenetic definitions are considered to be different if either: 1) they are of the same kind (e.g., node-based, branch-based, etc.) but cite different specifiers and/or have different
restrictions specified in their qualifying clauses (if any), or 2) they are of a different kind.
</font></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><font class="x_Apple-style-span" face="Arial">Note 13.2.2.<span style="">
</span>A species and its type specimen are considered to be the same specifier (see Note 11.1.1).</font></p>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Note 11.1.1, which is referred to in Note 13.2.2, was changed by CPN vote in January (see the attached changes in Art. 11 that were approved by the CPN). Before these changes were approved, Note 11.1.1 read as follows (i.e., in version 4c, currently
still online): "When a species is cited as a specifier, the implicit specifier is the type of that species name (if a type has been designated) under the appropriate rank-based code." </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The concept of an implicit specifier was removed from the code when the CPN revised Art. 11. With the changes that have been approved in Art. 11, a definition that uses a species name as a specifier and another definition that uses the type specimen of
that species would be considered different under Art. 13.2 because they have different specifiers. An indication that they are truly different is that the consequences of their use differ under certain situations discussed in new Arts. 11.4 and 11.6. Kevin
and I are therefore recommending that Note 13.2.2 be deleted.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let's give ourselves until Monday to discuss this. If the discussion appears to have ended by then, I will call for a vote next Tuesday.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Phil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="">
<div></div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body></html>