<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
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>
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>
<br>
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>
See the attached text for annotations showing where exactly
the problems are.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
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">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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>
</body>
</html>