Unsats caused by an issue involving tail (UBERON:0002415)

[anitacaron]

Among the remaining unsats, a handful are caused by an issue involving tail and the fact that said tail is constrained not to exist in Homo sapiens. Here is an example of such an issue:

• http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0011528 in taxon http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606 SubClassOf pubococcygeus muscle
  • pubococcygeus muscle SubClassOf has muscle insertion some coccyx
    • has muscle insertion SubPropertyOf: attached to
      • attached to SubPropertyOf: connected to
    • coccyx SubClassOf develops from some embryonic post-anal tail
      • embryonic post-anal tail SubClassOf transformation of some post-anal tail bud
        • post-anal tail bud SubClassOf has potential to develop into some post-anal tail
          • post-anal tail EquivalentTo tail and (part_of some caudal region)
            • tail SubClassOf in taxon some (not (Homo sapiens))
        • transformation of SubPropertyOf: develops from
      • develops from SubPropertyOf: has developmental contribution from
• http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0011528 in taxon http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606 SubClassOf in taxon some Homo sapiens
• has potential to develop into o in taxon SubPropertyOf: in taxon
• in taxon some Homo sapiens DisjointWith in taxon some (not (Homo sapiens))
• has developmental contribution from o in taxon SubPropertyOf: in taxon
• connected to o in taxon SubPropertyOf: in taxon

I believe the faulty axiom, in this issue and the similar ones, is the following:

• post-anal tail bud SubClassOf has potential to develop into some post-anal tail

If we look at post-anal tail, it is said to transformation of some embryonic post-anal tail – not the transformation of some post-anal tail bud! So it seems there is a discrepancy between the developmental relations: by following the transformation of, we have:

• post-anal tail bud -> embryonic post-anal tail -> post-anal tail

but following the has potential to develop into, we have directly instead:

• post-anal tail bud -> post-anal tail

Originally posted by @gouttegd in #2928 (comment)

[aleixpuigb]

Removing post-anal tail bud SubClassOf has potential to develop into some post-anal tail should fix the problem, and the relation is maintained:

If we look at post-anal tail, it is said to transformation of some embryonic post-anal tail – not the transformation of some post-anal tail bud! So it seems there is a discrepancy between the developmental relations: by following the transformation of, we have:

post-anal tail bud -> embryonic post-anal tail -> post-anal tail