GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220974246
From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:46 -0400
I like R1b-L2. It is compact but yet stills ties in better with the previous
terminology. It gets one quicker mentally to the right major branch area of the
phylo tree. I think using up to three alphanumerics and then the far right YSNP
is a good compromise that is more understandable to lay people trying to find
themselves on the tree.
David Faux wrote:
> As one of the new L2+ folk I say amen. My only hesitation is between using
> R1b-L2 or simply R-L2. I can see advantages to both. At present I use
> R-U152 for my database and am going to modify all of my writings in relation
> to genetic genealogy to reflect the new terminology - whatever it ends up
> being. We do need a consensus and I guess ISOGG is going to have to step up
> to the plate to help us rationalize things.
> David K. Faux.
> On 9/9/08, Dennis Wright <> wrote:
>> The bulk of old R1b1c* has been found to be S116+/P312+ and is now being
>> called R1b1b2a2* (ISOGG)
>> With the finding that there are some people are P311+ but P310- we have yet
>> another level in our R-Tree.
>> I believe, using the standard method of naming clades, I will become
>> With other SNPs that will no doubt pop into the R-tree in the future, I am
>> sure my clade name will get longer still in the future.
>> Isn't it time we standardised on R-P312+ ?
>> Don't you feel sorry for the new R-L2+ folks ... they can look forward to
>> being R1b1b2a1b7c
>> Time for change .....
>> Dennis W
|Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now? by charles <>|