Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-12 > 1133484969

From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New Y Phylogenetic Chart
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:56:09 -0500
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>


I guess you saw Dr. David Faux's boasting and misrepresentation of ISOGG
involvement. It may be ISOGG members doing it but I don't think it is an
ISOGG sanctioned project. And Katherine needs to publicly straighten
David and the lurking readers of his message out. I told her that and
she is reluctant to do it.

Call me about this if you can.

Charlie Kerchner
Emmaus PA
Tel: 610-966-0437

David Faux wrote:
> Good point Doug. This matter will be brought before the new working group at ISOGG which is charged with (or we have charged ourselves) with the responsiblity of incorporating the many changes that have occured of late but are not being addressed by the academic community. Thus we will create our own chart with built in flexibilty to have a Version 3.1 installed on the website in an instant. 2002 was the last "official" phylogenetic chart - that is unacceptable. There are many changes and a lot of these are not reflected in the 2003 (Jobling) and 2005 (U of A) efforts. These are static entities - we will be creating something fluid that can keep up with the changes. At Ethnoancestry we have 28 new SNPs alone and there are many new arrangements for the M's and P's that have become apparent of late. ISOGG will take the bull by the horns.
> David Faux.
> Doug McDonald <> wrote:
>> writes:
>>>“Ethnoancestry is pleased to announce the launch of a new SNP, S22,
>>>which unites haplogroups I and J to the exclusion of G, H and K, within the
> OK, it's now happened.
> So what to do with nomenclature?
> We really don't want to rename I and J as they now exist. Since we as
> yet, apparently, don't have anybody in this group and not in I or J,
> we don't have to worry about it ... it just appears as a blank on the
> tree, like the union of D and E does.
> In this case, a simple solution, however, is available, if rather
> messy: make this newfound group F2, and I and J become subgroups
> of F2. If somebody is found who has S22 but is not I or J, they
> would be F2.
> This would not work if somebody was found who was YAP/M145/M213
> but not either M174 or SRY4064/P29/M96. Presumably we would
> then resort to the kludge used by MTDNA and call these folks DE*.
> What do others think?
> Doug Mcdonald

This thread: