[CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note 9.3.1--COMMENTS DUE BY WEDNESDAY

[Cantino, Philip]

David, 

Thank you for spotting the omitted quotation mark.  You raise a good point about multiple apomorphies.  If I recall correctly, a definition of this type was also used in one of the entries for the companion volume (I was not the lead editor on that one, so I may be mis-remembering).  The use of multiple apomorphies is not very different from the use of a single complex apomorphy, which is addressed in Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E.   It may well be worth expanding that article and recommendation to cover complex apomorphies as well, or perhaps covering them separately but with wording parallel to that of Art. 9.10 and Rec. 9E.  I also wonder whether that article and recommendation should be moved up into the section of Article 9 that we are now considering.  However, I'd prefer to delay considering these questions  until we find out whether the proposal already on the table is approved by the CPN.  I'll make a note to myself so I don't forget to come back to this later.

Phil


On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:

> Good point in Note 9.5.2 about the use of external specifiers for minimum-clade definitions.
> 
> In the explanation of apomorphy-modified crown clade definitions, the quotation mark after "the crown clade characterized by apomorphy M (relative to other crown clades) as inherited by A" is missing.
> 
> Should we explicitly acknowledge the possibility of multiple apomorphies in an apomorphy-based definition? I've seen at least one in the literature, along the lines of "the first ancestor that had all of the following list of apomorphies inherited by A, plus all its descendants".
> 
> That's all. :-)
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn