"Long fingers" vs. "Short toe" vs. "Arachnodactyly"

[obophenotype-user]

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 16

In Uberpheno@charite I see that "Long fingers" is a subclass of "Short toe" which is
definitely wrong.

IMHO it is the definition of Arachnodactyly that causes the problems but I am not sure.
 I attached a screenshot of the first two explanations.

Does somebody have any idea? Should we maybe just delete the logical definition of
Arachnodactyly!

Reported by dr.sebastian.koehler on 2014-04-04 09:02:20

---

• Attachment: Screen Shot 2014-04-04 at 10.59.36.png
  

[obophenotype-user]

A related problem (see screenshot), but I still don't get it where the mix of toe/finger
is coming from. Anybody any ideas?

Reported by dr.sebastian.koehler on 2014-04-04 14:09:27

• Labels added: Priority-High
• Labels removed: Priority-Medium

---

• Attachment: Screen Shot 2014-04-04 at 16.06.42.png
  

[obophenotype-user]

In MPO "arachnodactyly" is a direct subclass of "abnormal digit morphology".
The MPO-arachnodactyly is asserted by us to be equivalent to HPO-Arachnodactyly.
IMHO the problem comes from HPO-hierarchy, where Arachnodactyly:
is_a: HP:0001238 ! Slender finger
is_a: HP:0010511 ! Long toe
is_a: HP:0100807 ! Long fingers

Does anybody agree that this might be the root of the problem?
If yes, does anybody have an idea how to solve this?

Reported by dr.sebastian.koehler on 2014-04-04 14:21:41

[obophenotype-user]

Yes! HP is definitely wrong here.

HP:0001166 ! Arachnodactyly ***  [DEF: "Abnormally long and slender fingers ("spider
fingers")."]

Nothing about toes

Reported by cmungall on 2014-04-16 15:33:15

[obophenotype-user]

Ok I'll fix this in HPO. MP is correct here? They refer to the more general class 'digit'
here.

Reported by dr.sebastian.koehler on 2014-04-16 15:59:01

[obophenotype-user]

Reported by dr.sebastian.koehler on 2014-04-16 16:05:39

• Status changed: Fixed