[Previous by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Next by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - Why is the PhyloCode so strict? (short)]
[Next by subject - [unknown]]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:47:02 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A
This may well be superfluous; one of Sereno's talks promises to discuss the
topic at some more length. In case it won't be superfluous, I'd like to
propose the following notation, with the goals of making definitions as
short as possible, but without losing information -- so that the shorthand
could appear in a protologue instead of a spelled-out version --, and of
making them language-independent.
A through G are taxa, M is an apomorphy.
Node-based:
{A(, B, C...) + D}
"{}" used instead of "Clade()" because it's shorter, already used on a few
websites, language-free, and avoids confusion with the method to write a
tree -- (A + (B + C))).
"+" used instead of "and" because it's shorter, in widespread use (abstract
booklet!) and language-free.
Stem-based:
{A(, B, C...) # D(, E, F...)}
"#" used instead of "not" because it's shorter and language-free; instead of
">" or "<--" because the direction of the arrow would confuse people either
way, and because "<--" is painfully ugly, unless replaced by a real arrow;
instead of "¬" because this (the mathematical "not" sign) is poorly known
and poorly available on keyboards. My English teacher used "#" for
"opposite". Its use for "number" seems to be restricted to the USA and is
not understood over here.
(Stem-based definitions with multiple internal specifiers are
potentially self-destructive.)
Apomorphy-based:
{M in A (+ B, C...)}
"in" used because symbols would be somewhat hard to find and would be poorly
known; "in" is Latin, English, German and more, so some internationality is
retained this way.
(Apomorphy-based definitions with a node-based clade as a specifier
are potentially self-destructive.)
One kind of qualifying clause:
{[...] \ G}
"\" is the mathematical "without" sign, and exists on every computer
keyboard. Does not work for Art. 11.9 Example 1, but for Example 2:
*Lepidosauriformes* = {*Lacerta agilis* + *Crocodylus niloticus* \ *Youngina
capensis*}.
(All potentially self-destructive.)
While I am at it, I would suggest a more complicated wording for Rec. 11A.
Currently it contains the sentences:
"Consequently, they should not necessitate, though they may allow, the
inclusion of subtaxa that were historically excluded from the taxon. To
accomplish this goal, internal specifiers of converted clade names should be
chosen from among the set of taxa that were considered to form part of a
taxon under either the original or traditional ideas about the composition
of that taxon, and they should not include members of subtaxa that were not
historically considered part of the taxon."
What about:
"Consequently, they should not necessitate, though they may allow, the
inclusion of subtaxa that were historically excluded from the taxon, nor the
exclusion of subtaxa that were historically included in the taxon. [next
sentence stays] Likewise, external specifiers of converted clade names
should be chosen from among taxa that were considered not to form part of a
taxon under either the original or traditional ideas about the composition
of that taxon, and they should not include members of subtaxa that were
historically considered part of the taxon."
But I'm not sure if we should really give the original and the meanwhile
traditional ideas equal consideration. Often, the original idea is quite
different from all subsequent ideas, and is largely or completely forgotten.
Few people have an idea what Linné included in Amphibia and Reptilia, and
even fewer care. Often the original author and his concept are forgotten; my
paleontological dictionary (1985) begins its entry for Reptiliomorpha with
"(v. HUENE)", as if nobody but the early and middle 20th century
paleontologist Friedrich von Huene had ever used this name, and then lists
the contents of this taxon as v. Huene imagined them, which may or may not
have much to do with how Säve-Söderbergh imagined it in 1934 (for example,
v. Huene did not accept Amniota and Reptilia, I don't know if
Säve-Söderbergh did). I also don't think many people know that Lissamphibia
originally excluded frogs... "Who can be sure what the past might hold?" --
even if it's the historical past.