[CPN] proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1: call for a vote

Wed May 1 08:11:06 EDT 2013

Dear CPN members,

In light of Michel's concerns, let's hold off on voting for a few days to give ourselves time to discuss these issues.

Phil

On May 1, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Michel Laurin wrote:

Dear colleagues,

    I am sorry that I did not have time to look at this text earlier. I have problems with the formulation for apomorphy-based clades, in which "synapomorphic with" was omitted of some kinds of allowed definitions. This is a mistake in my opinion because it leaves ambiguity; often, convergent apomorphies are indistinguishable from synapomorphic ones. So "synapomorphic" MUST be present in such kinds of definitions.

    The removal of minimal and maximal clades defined based on extinct taxa is a big mistake, in my opinion. These are the kinds of clades that paleontologists deal with most of the time, and they may conclude (with some justification) that this clade is not for them.

    Thust, for now, I vote against this amendment, although I am in favor of the rest of it. But I would like to see these issues fixed before I approve the changes.

    See the attached text for annotations showing where exactly the problems are.

    Best wishes,

    Michel

On 01/05/13 00:54, Cantino, Philip wrote:
Dear CPN members,

There has been little discussion of the proposed revisions to Note 9.3.1, so I'm calling a vote on it.  The version I am asking you to vote on is the one I sent yesterday, which incorporates responses to the two points David M. raised.  It is attached again to this message.  A simple Yes (to approve) or No (to reject) is all that is needed.  Please send your vote to the listserv, not to me personally.

Please try to vote by the end of the day this Friday, but if that schedule is too tight for some of you, let me know and I'll extend it a few days.

Thank you.

Regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1
Date: April 29, 2013 1:00:59 PM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>

Dear CPN members,

Kevin and I discussed the specific suggestions made by David (copied below).

1) Rather than replacing "synapomorphy" with "autapomorphy" in the wording of apomorphy-based definition, as David proposed, we think that it should be replaced with "apomorphy", and that the same change be made in the wording of the apomorphy-modified crown clade definition.  Although David is right that an apomorphy of a clade is an autapomorphy when viewed in relation to other clades (the outgroups), it is a synapomorphy of the members of the clade being named, which is why we used the term synapomorphy.  However, given that it can be viewed either way, the term "apomorphy" is clearer.

2) We agree with David's suggestion that "and" be changed to "or" in the definition of a total clade in Art. 2.2.

I am attaching a new version of the proposed changes that incorporates these new modifications.

David, thank you for your careful reading of the proposal.

Does anyone else have any comments?  Tomorrow is the day I said I would call for a vote if there was no active discussion.

Phil

On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:35 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
> ==================
>
> Concrete points about the current proposal:
>
> I am particularly happy about the replacement of "most/least inclusive" by "largest/smallest". The former are unambigous, but sound abstract enough that -- for a long time -- they managed to confuse me anyway.
>
> In the proposal to change the definition of "apomorphy-based clade", replace "synapomorphy" by "autapomorphy" (twice). Hennig liked inventing terminology, and he wanted to express every possible concept in a single word made from Greek components; therefore _one_ clade has autapomorphies (auto- = "self") while _two_ sister-groups (or more in case of a hard polytomy) have synapomorphies (syn- = "together"); the synapomorphies of two sister-groups are automatically autapomorphies of the smallest clade they form together, which makes the terms redundant in many cases, but still, there they are, and one clade can't have _syn_apomorphies together with just itself. -- The use of "apomorphy" in that section is correct; that term just means "derived character state" without saying derived relative to what.
>
> By using "and" in strategic places, the proposal to change the last point of Article 2.2 implies that total clades must contain entire species (even if they contain other organisms in addition). In turn, this implies that there cannot be clades within a species. This is correct under Hennig's species concept, but not under whatever concepts the ancestor worshippers think they use. Simply use "or" like in the proposal to change the preceding point (the one about crown clades).
>

_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

--
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php

<Note 9.3.1 min max terminiology final2.doc>_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130501/228887e3/attachment.html 