<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think that on several occasions I had the current wording in mind
in addition to the proposed one when I read the proposal, so I
missed the implications of some deletions. It is also... interesting
how much else I overlooked.<br>
<br>
<b>Art. 2.2:</b><br>
<br>
With all deleted parts actually deleted, the current proposal would
read like this:<br>
<br>
"2.2. In this code, the following categories of clades are
recognized [missing punctuation]<br>
<ul>
<li>A crown clade is a clade originating in the most recent common
ancestor of two or more extant species or organisms.</li>
<li>A total clade is a clade composed of a crown clade and all
species or organisms that share a more recent common ancestor
with that crown clade than with any extant species or organisms
that are not members of that crown clade."<br>
</li>
</ul>
That's all that remains of this Article. <b>Michel is right:</b> it
sounds like <b>only</b> these two categories are recognized. In
reality, these are just definitions of two terms. We might even move
them to the glossary! Alternatively, we could turn Art. 2.2 into a <b>Note
2.1.4</b>: "In this code, a clade is called a crown clade if it
originates in the most recent common ancestor of two or more extant
species or organisms, and a clade is called a total clade if it is
composed of a crown clade and all species or organisms that share a
more recent common ancestor with that crown clade than with any
extant species or organisms that are not members of that crown
clade."<br>
<br>
<b>Note 9.3.1:</b><br>
<br>
In my next message I'll propose a reorganization of this Note based
on the didactic presentation I tried out in Wikipedia.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phylogenetic_nomenclature&oldid=514176633">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phylogenetic_nomenclature&oldid=514176633</a>
Independently of this, I propose the following:<br>
<br>
The proposed wording for "minimum clade definition" makes special
mention of crown clades, but the proposed wording for "maximum clade
definition" doesn't mention total clades at all. Shouldn't they be
mentioned? How about: "If the definitional author intends the name
to apply to a total clade, the word "total" may be included before
the word "clade" under either wording. If the name is explicitly
defined as applying to a total clade using this type of definition,
all of the external and at least one of the internal specifiers must
be extant." We might, or might not, want to come up with a symbol
analogous to "*".<br>
<br>
In the proposed wordings for "apomorphy-based definition" and
"apomorphy-modified crown clade definition", simply replace "as
exhibited" by "inherited" all three times, and everybody's happy.
Example 1 of Art. 11.9 uses a wordier alternative with "homologous";
that's obviously fine, too. <b>Michel is right:</b> "exhibited"
leaves open the possibility that A may have lost and regained M
after the origin of the intended clade in all three wordings, and
more generally the possibility that there are several ancestors in
which M, identical to the condition seen in A, originated
independently, so that M is an autapomorphy of several clades and
characterizes them all.<br>
<br>
<b>Art. 9.4 and </b><b>9.5:</b><br>
<br>
I just noticed they appear to contradict each other.<br>
<br>
<b>Art. 11.9:</b><br>
<br>
Both the unmodified Art. 11.9 and the proposed Note 11.9.1 presume
that the examples which follow both belong to them. This needs to be
clarified (one way or the other).<br>
<br>
The proposed wording for "maximum clade definition" implies that
such definitions can only have a single internal specifier. I think
we should add a note saying that they may have several, but that
this makes them potentially self-destructive (Example 3 to Art.
11.9... or to Note 11.9.1), so it should only be done if authors
want this to be an option.<br>
</body>
</html>