A piece of text — actually a set of examples — was unintentionally left out of the manuscript of the first edition of Guide to Terminology. The problem concerns section 2.2 Systematic nature of definitions (page 17). Please find below the beginning of the section as it should have read in the publication.
In addition, a misprint has been detected in the example of an incomplete extensional definition of coniferous tree on page 23. The second "pine" should be replaced by "spruce", so the definition should read as follows:
coniferous tree
familiar representatives of conifers are cedars, cypresses, firs, junipers, larches, pines, redwoods and spruces
The publisher apologises for these deficiencies.
2.2 Systematic nature of definitions
Clearness in communication requires a clear description of the concepts and the relations and differences among them. Therefore, when drafting a definition, it is necessary to know how the concept fits into the concept system in question.
In generic concept systems, the intensional definitions are always based on the nearest superordinate concept. Delimiting characteristics are then selected to show the relation between the superordinate and subordinate concepts.
EXAMPLES:
tree
tall plant with hard self-supporting trunk and branches that lives for many years
coniferous tree
tree with needle-formed leaves and exposed or naked seeds
fir
coniferous tree of the genus Abies
In partitive concept systems, a relation between the superordinate and subordinate concept is shown in only one of the definitions of the concepts.
--- (The rest of the section is all right in the publication.) ---