<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Kevin and I quickly consulted, and we agree with both of these minor changes proposed by David M. I have gone ahead and made the changes under the assumption that the rest of the majority of the CPN would concur, but if anyone objects, please let me know; I will interpret lack of response as acceptance. With this change, Art. 11.8 now reads: <font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial">When a specimen
that is not a type is used as a specifier in a phylogenetic definition, the
institution or collection in which the specifier is conserved must be
identified, as well as the collection number or other information needed to identity
the specimen unambiguously. </font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial">Phil</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial"><br></font></div><br><div><div>On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:06 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Yes to both.<br><br>Just... "descendents" near the end of the new Art. 11.7 should probably be spelled "descendants"; at the end of what will be 11.8, I propose replacing "establish the identity of the specimen" by "unambiguously identify the specimen" or "identify the specimen unambiguously", because that sounds clearer to me. Sorry I didn't see this earlier.<br>_______________________________________________<br>CPN mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br>http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>