GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221003496
From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:38:16 -0400
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPOEHKFKAA.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <48C696A6.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yes, with the R1b or R1a prefix before the SNP one can at least mentally think
roughly, western Europe or easter Europe, etc. I do hope the ISOGG committee
would adopt that composite type of the old and the new, i.e., R1b-L2 or R1b(L2)
rather than going to very spartan symbology using only the far left side of the
tree backbone designator and the far right tree twig, i.e., R-L2. R1b-L2 or
R1b(L2) is still very compact and conveys much more information and gets one to
the right major branches of the right side of the tree mentally and ties in with
the prior symbology and historical usage in scientific papers much better.
I ordered the L2 test but haven't received the results yet. Since you and I have
tracked the same path with SNPs to date, it will be interesting to see if you
and I have the same L2 results. I suspect we will. But will have to wait and
see. I'll post it when I learn the results.
David Faux wrote:
> Yes, this is what David Weston has been doing with his East Anglia Project
> for some time now. I am just hoping that ISOGG will come out with a
> recommendation - but I clearly understand your rationale. BTW, do you or
> others you know have L2 etc. results?
> David K. Faux.
> On 9/9/08, charles <> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> I like R1b-L2. It is compact but yet stills ties in better with the
>> 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
>> is a good compromise that is more understandable to lay people trying to
>> themselves on the tree.
>> David Faux wrote:
>>> As one of the new L2+ folk I say amen. My only hesitation is between
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> to the plate to help us rationalize things.
>>> David K. Faux.
|Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now? by charles <>|