<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 also strongly prefer that the old terms be mentioned in the
text, not only in the glossary, for reasons that Jim just
explained very well.<br>
<br>
I am also relieved that the editors will handle this change in
terminology in the Companion Volume contributions, for which the
editorial process has been nightmarish, in my opinion. Never in my
career have I seen a book be in preparation for so long, nor the
papers come back to me so often or after so long (like a couple of
years between submission or revision and feedback on that
version). I still have a few to revise but I have not found time
to do so simply because I have more urgent things to do, like
finalizing papers or revising papers that I know will get
decisions within a couple of months, as opposed to this book which
may be published in the next decade... But I will try to get to
those revisisons this Fall, after my long Latino-American trip
(which means in November). In these revisions, I will not worry
about the change in terminology because I have enough to do with
these short, extremely densely-commented contributions. And when I
discussed the CV with another contributor, whose name I will not
disclose because I did not ask for his permission to cite him, he
told me that he was annoyed because his contributions kept coming
back with more comments, and that if they came back once more, he
would just give up... So, this is a touchy issue and I sure hope
that Phil's understanding about how the CV editors will handle
this is shared by Jacques and Kevin.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, the long delay in implementing our code because
of the CV is still leading colleagues to wonder if the project is
dead; at ICVM-10 in Barcelona, a couple of weeks ago, I have a
discussion about this with J. Hanken, and I cleared up this issue.
But I have no idea how many others think like him... So I just
hope that the extra work for the CV editors will not mean adding
another couple of years in publication of this much-overdue book.<br>
<br>
Michel<br>
<br>
On 24/07/13 03:10, James Doyle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:a06230906ce14d2376420@%5B169.237.66.91%5D"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style>
<title>Re: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize Note
9.3.1--COMMENTS</title>
<div>Hello Phil et al.,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the last minute I've finally gone through all the e-mails
on
these issues since April. The one thing that has bothered me
all
along is Brian's point about continuity of old and new terms.
At
first the change in terminology struck me as one of those
annoyances
that turn people off to nomenclature of all kinds - first we ask
people to adopt one new set of terms, like node- and
branch-based, and
then just when they think they finally understand them we tell
them to
forget all about it and adopt a new set, for reasons that seem
exceedingly abstruse (sorry, Kevin). But now I'm coming around
to the notion that the new terms are theoretically better and
self-explanatory enough, actually more so than the old ones, and
as a
neo/paleo person I'm relieved that the terms crown clade and
total
clade maintain their conspicuous roles. The idea that you'll
change the terminology throughout the companion volume is also a
big
relief.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nevertheless, I really would feel better if the old terms
were
explicitly acknowledged in the text where the new terms are
introduced, not relegated to the glossary, since so many people
have
seen the old terms in the literature on phylogenetic
nomenclature and
have made efforts to understand them. At the very least this
could be done parenthetically in terms such as "see Glossary for
the relations of these terms to the widely used terms node-based
and
branch-based."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jim</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Brian,<br>
<br>
This is a good point. My understanding is that we editors will
be responsible for changing all the terminology throughout the
companion volume before it is published, so it will not be a
headache
for the authors and there will be no discrepancy between the
companion
volume and the code. (Kevin, please confirm whether this is
your
understanding as well.)<br>
<br>
As for your suggestion that the old terms be mentioned in the
new text
for the sake of continuity, since the old (current) terms are
widely
known and used, I think the best place to do that might be the
glossary.<br>
<br>
Phil<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Brian Andres wrote:<br>
<br>
> Greetings all,<br>
><br>
><x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> £á<br>
><br>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:47 PM, "Cantino, Philip"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cantino@ohio.edu"><cantino@ohio.edu></a> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> David,<br>
>><br>
>> 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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">>><br>
>> Phil<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Good point in Note 9.5.2 about the use of external
specifiers for minimum-clade definitions.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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".<br>
>>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">>>> That's all. :-)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>> CPN mailing list<br>
>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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>
>><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<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>