[CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi all,

     It is late, but I will be busy with something else tomorrow 
(technically, later today because it is 2:20AM), so I just want to add 
that after reading Kevin's and David's comments, with which I agree (at 
least at first glance), if the changes outlined by both are done, I 
think that I will feel comfortable voting for the amendment.

     Good night,

     Michel

On 02/05/13 02:10, David Marjanovic wrote:
> The entire text of the version I propose follows. Because it is so 
> different from the current wording, I have not marked additions and 
> deletions, except where I propose to delete entire paragraphs. 
>  
> ================================= 
>  
> /Note 9.3.1./ The definition of "clade" is "an ancestor (an organism, 
> population, or species) and all of its descendants" (Art. 2.1). 
> Building on this definition, clade names can be defined by pointing at 
> such an ancestor, creating a phylogenetic definition. This can be done 
> in different ways, such as the following: 
>  
> * The ancestor can be mentioned directly in an ancestor-based 
> definition: "A and all its descendants", where A is a specific 
> organism, population, or species. 
> * Usually, however, the intended ancestor is not directly known. 
> Thus, the ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more 
> specifiers (Art. 11) that are mentioned directly: 
> o A minimum-clade definition [note the hyphen which makes clear 
> that the clade, not the definition, is a minimum] may take the 
> form [...] 
> o A maximum-clade definition may take the form [...] 
> o An apomorphy-based definition may take the form [...] 
> * The ancestor can be indicated by its relation to two or more 
> specifiers that are not mentioned directly, but described as 
> members of another clade that fulfill certain criteria. Such 
> definitions may first describe an unnamed clade and then use its 
> extant members (or those fulfilling another criterion) as 
> specifiers for a minimum-clade definition: 
> o A maximum-modified crown clade definition [note the addition 
> of "-modified" to avoid confusion because crown clades are 
> minimum clades] may take the form [...] 
> o An apomorphy-modified crown clade definition may take the form 
> [...] 
> * A crown clade in its entirety, mentioned by name, can be the 
> internal specifier in the definition of the name of a total clade 
> under the conditions specified in Art. 10.5. [This fact 
> contradicts a claim in Note 11.1.2.] 
>  
> [deletion of the two paragraphs that follow this list in the proposal 
> we're currently discussing] 
>  
> The above list is not exhaustive. Most importantly, definitions may 
> contain qualifying clauses that restrict their applications to 
> specific phylogenetic hypotheses (Art. 11.9). 
>  
> The system of abbreviations used here [...] 
>  
> For abbreviations involving qualifying clauses, see Note 11.9.1. 
>  
>  
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
-- 
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20130502/9e983bb8/attachment-0001.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: Proposal to reorganize really just Note 9.3.1 this time
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]