[CPN] proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1: call for a vote
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Wed May 1 12:49:21 EDT 2013
Thanks Phil,
I just noticed that there was a typo in my message; the end of the
last sentence of the second paragraph should read "...they may conclude
(with some justification) that this *code* is not for them." But I think
that you understood that...
Cheers,
Michel
On 01/05/13 14:11, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130501/72187270/attachment.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list