On 9/13/18 12:28 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
[log in to unmask]">Yikes! My apologies to Doug Yanega, this message should have been a private reply to a private message.  So sorry, please delete and pretend you never saw it.

Mike: I don't have a problem with it, because I think this is not quite what you think it is (I feel like we're doing a bit from "The Princess Bride" here), and I don't take it personally. It's not just "my" document, either. Regardless, the reason we phrased the document this way, and made it public this way, is specifically to make recommendations for practice which lie OUTSIDE of the legislative text of the Code. Appendix A itself is explicitly NOT part of the legislative text, and it was cited simply to illustrate that the Commission is taking this opportunity to make suggestions regarding best practices, which is all that Appendix A is and ever has been. For that matter, even the Recommendations we cite are, technically, NOT legislative. The Code also says nothing, anywhere, about selecting type specimens that can be sequenced, but we included that recommendation, as well - and you didn't criticize it. Again, we are fully aware that there are things in this document that are not in the Code, let alone mandated by it, and we aren't pretending otherwise. It is worded VERY carefully to distinguish which things are mandatory, and which things are not, and my original accompanying message also had a very clear disclaimer about this document NOT being legislative.


Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82