GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221940721


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroups? Clades? Haplotypes? (was: What shall R1b1ccall themselves now?)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:58:41 -0600
References: <mailman.3225.1221526842.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000a01c9179e$2460e010$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><334D79EB53BE44E5895F93ACB67613A7@bobPC><A1AD5CF3-4463-4E8E-932B-AEEC1E3E7FA4@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80809160621w5eff26e2q321c91924b3ae403@mail.gmail.com><2A96949D-95AE-4218-962C-051447A5C7BA@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80809160713h629c855evffbbde284a9f180d@mail.gmail.com><44E4E339-E012-4F5E-AFED-42BEE2E04E1F@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80809161157i22548c08v7831d1803821ec4e@mail.gmail.com><4924B11C-7FB7-4F2D-A0A8-1500F63F87D6@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80809161733x605d84c4t4131d9d67cdf05f4@mail.gmail.com><007b01c91860$847a62b0$6400a8c0@Ken1><E1Kh7nO-00063T-00@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Itzhak Epstein" <>


> It is important to be consistent when using technical or scientific
> terminology. It is not like disagreeing about the qualifications for
> a national vice presidency [[[[ or presidency ]]]]]. Therefore, when
> discussing variations in
> the Y-DNA chromosome, I was led to understand that haplogroups differ
> from each other according to SNPs; haplotypes (depending on the
> markers used) differ from each other according to STRs; modal
> haplotypes are the combined modes of each marker for any relevant
> group; and clades are synonymous with haplogroups [[[[ No; clades are a
> wider class of things --- a clade is a population having common descent
> from a founder. We see clades of haplotypes for which no SNP tag has yet
> been found (although it is probably there to be found in most cases), and
> there are the haplogroups which are clades ]]]]], If the definitions
> above
> are wrong, then let's agree on different ones. With all due respect
> to the talented amateurs in this forum, here is not where the
> terminology of population genetics should be decided. [[[ Have you noticed
> the inconsistencies lately in the papers by your non-amateurs? ]]]
>
> Still, I would have been happier had "haplogroup" maintained its SNP
> based definition [[[ I think it does for most ]]]] and "clade" included
> additional major
> differentiations,. Would ht15 and ht35 have qualified as clades [[[ some,
> even your pros, would use that UEP as giving haplogroup status to the
> separate populations. ]]]]]


This thread: