Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-07 > 1121771072

From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] More Y-SNP Options - Research Implications
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-DAV164DB343E772C6DCF26178F1D50@phx.gbl>

I don't see any particular problems for R1b people either way. It is just a nomenclature issue. The advantage of the Cinnioglu tree is that we don't have to deal with a new defining marker for R1b. There are just too many references to R1b-P25 to make the change desirable, at least until there is more information about R1b subclades.

Bob Stafford

William Hurst <> wrote:
Hi David and Ken and all,

The 2005 tree, no matter how official it is or who published it, is very
important to that very small group of us known as R1b, since the old 2003
tree doesn't have M343. David has adopted it, while DNAH has adopted the
awkward Cinnioglu paper tree which stuffs the marker in without renumbering
the clades below it. Think of squeezing the toothpaste tube with the top on
until a new subclade pops out the side. Viola! R1c.

Bill Hurst

> It is my understanding that this tree is the working model being used at
> present by the team at the University of Arizona and is in essence an
> updated version (based on the current literature) of the 2002 YCC tree.
> Recall that Dr. Hammer of the U. of A. was the head of the Committee and
> the driving force behind it. Thus we will continue to use the most up to
> date phylogenetic system - although I do wish it would see the light of
> day in a journal, and that the YCC were still an active entity.
> David F.

Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: