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

[Brian Andres]

Greetings all,

	I like how this section has been fleshed out commensurate to its importance. If the proposed changes are voted down, I would suggest keeping most of the new text with the old terminology. However, I do have one reservation for the proposed changes in terminology. If we excise all the node- and branch-based terms, are we going to ask all the authors for Companion Volume to rewrite their entries with these terms removed? Both the Examples_for_Authors and Instructions_for_Authors use these terms, and #5 under Format for Entries in the Instructions requires their use. I for one use these the old terms seven times in my entries. There is a tradition of using this terminology in the literature and previous versions of the Code, and I wonder if they should be at least mentioned in the discussion of minimum- and maximum-clade definitions for continuity and for this discrepancy between the Code and Companion Volume. 

Best,
Ⓑ

On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:

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