[CPN] Fwd: proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1: call for a vote
Michel Laurin
michel.laurin at upmc.fr
Wed May 1 13:19:59 EDT 2013
Dear Phil (and others),
On 01/05/13 15:00, Cantino, Philip wrote:
> 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."
I don't see the advantage of this change. If simplification is what
is aimed at, the fact that we would need to add explanations would
negate the effect of deleting three kinds of definitions. And even that
explanation is only half-convincing. Paleontologists might think that we
are accommodating their needs as an after-thought, and might wrongly
think that their clade name/definitions combinations are somehow not
important in PN, as implemented in the ICPN. Besides, the spirit of this
change seems to run counter with the move towards a more general
formulation (maximal and minimal clades, and earlier, branch-based
rather than stem-based). There has been relatively little use of the
ICPN so far (by comparison with the number of systematics papers), so do
we even have a big enough sample to tell that most clades named and
defined under the ICPN in the next 10 years are likely to be crown-based
or total clades? And do we have the stats about what has been done so
far? I don't. Personally, I would be cautious to put anything in the
code that might discourage some potential users. It is hard enough to
get our colleagues to use the ICPN as it is.
>
> 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?
No, I did not really highlight anything. I just inserted a note in
the paragraph.
> If so, I don't understand why you don't have the same concerns about
> the other wordings that use "exhibited" rather than synapomorphic.
I do have concerns about all proposed formulations of
apomorphy-based definitions in the proposed amendment. I would suggest this:
" An apomorphy-based definition may take the form "the clade originating
in the ancestor in which apomorphy M, synapomorphic with A, originated.
" or " the clade for which M, *synapomorphic with* A, is an apomorphy "
or " the clade characterized by apomorphy M *synapomorphic with* A "
(modified parts in bold text).
> 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).
See above.
>
> Best wishes,
> Phil
>
Best wishes,
Michel
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c8d71b1c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list