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

Wed May 1 09:00:03 EDT 2013

Dear Michel (and other CPN members),

In rewording Art. 2.2, we did not intend to imply that crown and total clades are the only types of clades recognized by the code.  We proposed deleting the other three types of clades from the list because they are really kinds of definitions and names rather than categories of clades (see our comments in brackets immediately before Art 2 in the proposal).  However, I can see how people would interpret our wording to mean that these are the only kinds of clades recognized by the code.  I suggest that we address this problem by adding a new Note 2.2.1, worded something like this:  "Art. 2.2 is not intended to imply that crown clades and total clades are the only clades whose names are governed by this code.  Minimum clade definitions, maximum clade definitions, and apomorphy-based definitions can be used to define the names of clades that are neither crown nor total."

Regarding the wording of apomorphy-based clades and apomorphy-modified crown clade definitions, are the wordings you highlighted the only ones you are concerned about? If so, I don't understand why you don't have the same concerns about the other wordings that use "exhibited" rather than synapomorphic.  As a basis for discussion, it would be helpful if you would send the listserv the exact wording you would like for each formulation of these two kinds of definitions (at least those formulations that you would like to change).

Best wishes,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michel Laurin <michel.laurin at upmc.fr<mailto:michel.laurin at upmc.fr>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1: call for a vote
Date: May 1, 2013 3:05:43 AM EDT
To: "cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>" <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>

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

_______________________________________________
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/b629d00c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Note 9.3.1 min max terminiology final2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 71168 bytes
Desc: Note 9.3.1 min max terminiology final2.doc
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130501/b629d00c/attachment-0001.doc 