<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Dear CPN members,</div><div><br></div><div>In light of Michel's concerns, let's hold off on voting for a few days to give ourselves time to discuss these issues.</div><div><br></div><div>Phil</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 1, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Michel Laurin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear colleagues,<br>
      <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.<br>
      <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.<br>
      <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; See the attached text for annotations showing where exactly
      the problems are.<br>
      <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Best wishes,<br>
      <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Michel<br>
      <br>
      On 01/05/13 00:54, Cantino, Philip wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:5617B868-2DEF-42AB-8E98-52A51260F431@ohio.edu" type="cite">
      
      <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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;It
          is attached again to this message. &nbsp;A simple Yes (to approve)
          or No (to reject) is all that is needed. &nbsp;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 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" &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu">cantino@ohio.edu</a>&gt;<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 &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>&gt;<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).&nbsp; <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.&nbsp;
                      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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      David, thank you for your careful reading of the
                      proposal.<br>
                      <br>
                      Does anyone else have any comments?&nbsp; 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>
                      &gt; ==================<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; Concrete points about the current proposal:<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 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>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 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>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 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>
                      &gt; <br>
                      <br>
                    </div>
                  </font></div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div style="">
        <div>
          <div>
            <blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
              CPN mailing list<br>
              <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie        
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php">http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php</a></pre>
  </div>

<span>&lt;Note 9.3.1 min max terminiology final2.doc&gt;</span>_______________________________________________<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></body></html>