[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A]
[Previous by subject - Re: Why is the PhyloCode so strict? (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A]
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A
--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote: > 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} Did you mean: {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))). I don't know if it's desirable, at least in this case, that it be language-free. The PhyloCode may come to cover several types of taxa, not just clades. The currently proposed format is appropriately simlar to a mathermatical or computer-language function, and you could use it for other types of taxa as well, e.g. species(CM 9380). Furthermore, trees are usually written using commas: (A, (B, C)) > "+" used instead of "and" because it's shorter, in widespread use (abstract > booklet!) and language-free. This does make sense to me. > 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. I have never heard of anyone using "#" for "not" -- I can't see how this would be intuitive at all. Incidentally, programmers us "!" for "not", but, again, I can't see this being widely intuitive, either. I thought that "<--", whether ugly or not, clearly communicated what it meant. Furthermore, most extended fonts have a more elegant verison of it (which may or may not show up correctly for everyone): ← > 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.) Sounds good to me. ===== =====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail