<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body>
<div style="">Dear CPN members,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Phil</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="">
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div>Begin forwarded message:</div>
<br class="x_Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin-top:0px; margin-right:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium">"Cantino, Philip" <<a href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu">cantino@ohio.edu</a>><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px; margin-right:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium"><b>Re: [CPN] proposed revisions of Note 9.3.1</b><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px; margin-right:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium">April 29, 2013 1:00:59 PM EDT<br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px; margin-right:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px">
<span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium">Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <<a href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div class="x_BodyFragment"><font size="2">
<div class="x_PlainText">Dear CPN members,<br>
<br>
Kevin and I discussed the specific suggestions made by David (copied below). <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
2) We agree with David's suggestion that "and" be changed to "or" in the definition of a total clade in Art. 2.2.<br>
<br>
I am attaching a new version of the proposed changes that incorporates these new modifications.
<br>
<br>
David, thank you for your careful reading of the proposal.<br>
<br>
Does anyone else have any comments? Tomorrow is the day I said I would call for a vote if there was no active discussion.<br>
<br>
Phil<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</font></div>
<div class="x_BodyFragment"><font size="2">
<div class="x_PlainText"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:35 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:<br>
> ==================<br>
> <br>
> Concrete points about the current proposal:<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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).<br>
> <br>
<br>
</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
CPN mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>