Bogus classification of insect dorsal ectoderm derivative

[gouttegd]

insect dorsal ectoderm derivative is classified as a multicellular anatomical structure.

There is no reason why a derivative of the dorsal ectoderm would have to be a multicellular structure. Indeed, in FBbt some derivatives of the dorsal ectoderm are individual cells (e.g. histoblasts) or even acellular structures (e.g. apodemes).

This classification causes ~845 unsats when Uberon and FBbt are merged.

The Uberon term should be classified as an ectoderm-derived structure instead – the same classification already used for the similar terms insect anterior ectoderm derivative and insect ventral ectoderm derivative.

[gouttegd]

The Uberon term should be classified as an ectoderm-derived structure instead

This brings another problem, because an ectoderm-derived structure is an anatomical structure, which is a connected entity. But insect derivatives of the ectoderm include disconnected entities, such as sensory organ clusters.

So either:

• ectoderm-derived structure must be redefined to be about ectoderm-derived entities, in order to cover any derivative of the ectoderm regardless of their “connectedness”, or
• insect dorsal ectoderm derivative must be unmapped from FBbt’s dorsal ectoderm derivative, because the FBbt term does cover any derivative regardless of their “connectedness“ (and is therefore not the same thing as the Uberon term).