dellch
commented
6 years ago From Nico: Ok, so I got feedback from Kevin and Phi and things are now more clear. Kevin says:
I think you understood what I had in mind. If the definition type selected is minimum clade, then it should not be possible to pick an apomorphy as a specifier. I think it would also be the case that if an apomorphy-based definition is selected, then it should not be possible to use a species or specimen as a specifier (we already have a box for the species “as exhibited in”). I’m not sure we want to prohibit using a species as a qualifier in an apomorphy-based definition, but I can’t think of a situation in which one would be used (though I haven’t thought hard about this). Maybe Phil knows of a case."
And Phil says
"I can’t think of an example of a species being used as a qualifier in an apomorphy-based definition, but I think it would be best to leave the option open in RegNum." Let's do that!
ncellinese
• Ideally, there would be a specifiers & qualifier box that is specific to each definition type (for example, so that using an apomorphy as a specifier is not possible if the definition type is minimum-clade). Big change
• We need to figure out how to handle a crown-based total-clade definition (e.g., Pan-Testudines = Total (Testudines)). Ideally, we would only allow this type of definition if the name of the crown clade is already in the database. We could then allow use of the crown clade (via its name) as the specifier, but this would require a specifier & qualifier box that is unique to this type of definition (since other types use species as specifiers while this would use a clade). The alternative is to require re-entering the names of the specifiers used to define the name of the crown clade , which would be more cumbersome. Could we have Regnum fill in author and date automatically if the crown clade name matches one in the database?