sorry to interject here, but I'm interested in harmonizing this with the HP

> adactyly [MP:0000561] Definition: missing one or more digits, or all digits

compare:

HP:0009776 ! Adactyly [DEF: "The absence of **all** phalanges of **all** the digits of a limb and the associated soft tissues."]

i.e. adactly - has at least one limb with zero digits

> oligodactyly [MP:0000565] Definition: congenital condition in which some digits or parts of digits are missing

is the "congenital" needed here?

HP lacks a class at the level of autopod, but has:

..is_a HP:0001180 ! Oligodactyly (hands) *** [DEF: "A developmental defect resulting in the presence of fewer than the normal number of fingers."]

...is_a HP:0004058 ! Monodactyly (hands)

...is_a HP:0006210 ! Postaxial oligodactyly

...is_a HP:0006230 ! Unilateral oligodactyly

and

....is_a HP:0001849 ! Oligodactyly (feet) *** [DEF: "A developmental defect resulting in the presence of fewer than the normal number of toes."]

.....is_a HP:0200054 ! Monodactyly (feet)

but this seems consistent with MP

> From the definitions, it would appear that monodactyly and oligodactyly could be children of adactyly

according to the MP defs yes. This would solve your annotation problem - you annotate to the more specific term, and the parent annotation is inferred.

However, if we follow the HP defs, the situation is reversed! Adactly here means missing all digits, so adactly wpuld be moved to be a subclass of oligodactyly (unless a clause is added to the def for oligo saying "some, but not *all*").

Corresponding HP tracker item:

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3591402&group_id=76834&atid=1112722