Vogt Lars, Bartolomaeus Thomas, Giribet Gonzalo
Institut für Evolutionsbiologie und Ökologie, Fachgruppe Biologie, Universität Bonn, An der Immenburg 1, D-53121 Bonn, Germany.
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Cladistics. 2010 Jun;26(3):301-325. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00286.x. Epub 2009 Oct 7.
The present article discusses the need for standardization in morphology in order to increase comparability and communicability of morphological data. We analyse why only morphological descriptions and not character matrices represent morphological data and why morphological terminology must be free of homology assumptions. We discuss why images only support and substantiate data but are not data themselves. By comparing morphological traits and DNA sequence data we reveal fundamental conceptual shortcomings of the former that result from their high average degree of individuality. We argue that the delimitation of morphological units, of datum units, and of evidence units must be distinguished, each of which involves its own specific problems. We conclude that morphology suffers from the linguistic problem of morphology that results from the lack of (i) a commonly accepted standardized morphological terminology, (ii) a commonly accepted standardized and formalized method of description, and (iii) a rationale for the delimitation of morphological traits. Although this is not problematic for standardizing metadata, it hinders standardizing morphological data. We provide the foundation for a solution to the linguistic problem of morphology, which is based on a morphological structure concept. We argue that this structure concept can be represented with knowledge representation languages such as the resource description framework (RDF) and that it can be applied for morphological descriptions. We conclude with a discussion of how online databases can improve morphological data documentation and how a controlled and formalized morphological vocabulary, i.e. a morphological RDF ontology, if it is based on a structure concept, can provide a possible solution to the linguistic problem of morphology. © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.
本文讨论了形态学标准化的必要性，以便提高形态学数据的可比性和可交流性。我们分析了为什么只有形态学描述而非特征矩阵代表形态学数据，以及为什么形态学术语必须摆脱同源性假设。我们讨论了为什么图像仅支持和证实数据，而其本身并非数据。通过比较形态学特征和DNA序列数据，我们揭示了前者由于其高度的个体平均度而存在的基本概念缺陷。我们认为，必须区分形态学单位、数据单位和证据单位的界定，其中每一个都涉及自身特定的问题。我们得出结论，形态学存在形态学语言问题，这是由于缺乏（i）一个被普遍接受的标准化形态学术语，（ii）一个被普遍接受的标准化和形式化描述方法，以及（iii）形态学特征界定的基本原理。虽然这对于标准化元数据没有问题，但它阻碍了形态学数据的标准化。我们为解决形态学语言问题提供了基础，该基础基于一个形态学结构概念。我们认为，这个结构概念可以用诸如资源描述框架（RDF）等知识表示语言来表示，并且可以应用于形态学描述。我们最后讨论了在线数据库如何改进形态学数据文档，以及一个受控的和形式化的形态学词汇表，即一个基于结构概念的形态学RDF本体，如何能够为形态学语言问题提供一个可能的解决方案。© 威利·亨尼希协会2009年。
