GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-04 > 1238620712


From: Jonathan Day <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming conventions
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:18:32 -0700 (PDT)


I'm inclined to agree that the subject currently being discussed has been beaten to death, pulped, buried, exhumed and recycled as firelighters. I've given up on getting an answer to what I'd originally asked, so will probably join in the deleting.

--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Beth Long <> wrote:

> From: Beth Long <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming conventions
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 1:14 PM
> I just think the subject has been
> beaten to death already. But if you think not, then by all
> means, have at it some more...
>  
> I didn't say newcomers, by the way, I said "the average
> person" But maybe this list is like Lake Woebegone, where
> "all the children are above average?"
>  
> I will delete from now on, as you suggested.
>  
> Beth
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Diana Gale Matthiesen <>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming conventions
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 1:02 PM
>
>
> The disadvantage of STR-clade and SNP-clade is that the
> terms only tell you
> *what* is being classified, not *how* it's being
> classified, which is the issue.
> As for the newcomers not understanding the terms, I didn't
> know anyone on the
> list was targeting their messages at newcomers.  I would
> wager most of the posts
> on this list would bewilder a novice.
>
> I wasn't seriously suggesting clado-clade and pheno-clade,
> although the terms
> would achieve the function of distinguishing the "kind" of
> clade they are.  If
> we would stick to using clade only in its narrow sense, we
> could use "phenome"
> for the STR groups.  In fact, we could, anyway.  The term
> "phenome" is not much
> used because taxonomists using phenetic methods usually
> call their groups taxa
> (sing., taxon), which terms would not be appropriate for a
> variety of reasons,
> so let's not go there.
>
> I seem to be the only one who cares to make the
> distinction, but I like the term
> "phenomes."  For example, my CARRICO family is very tight
> knit (all matching
> 65/67 or better), but it's haplotype is very distinct from
> any other family..  We
> are a "phenome," a group defined phenetically (by the
> resemblance of our STR
> motifs), in Haplogroup J-2a4b, a group defined
> cladistically (by our phylogeny,
> our place on the evolutionary haplotree).
>
> As for your not being interested in this subject, may I
> recommend that you
> please just hit your Del key.  I don't believe this thread
> is off topic for the
> list.
>
> Diana
>
> P.S.  "Phenotypic analysis" or "phenetics" is not
> especially exotic or obscure.
> It simply means classifying living things by their
> phenotype.  I'm sure you know
> enough about genetics to know the difference between
> genotype and phenotype..
> For most classifications, it means tabulating morphological
> features, such as,
> number of legs, body covering, color, breathing mechanism
> (lungs or gills,
> etc.), reproductive method (lay eggs or gives live birth,
> etc.).  Some include
> behavior as a phenotypic trait (digs burrows, builds
> mounds, makes tools, etc.),
> or even the products of that behavior (the dam built by a
> beaver).  Whatever
> characters you choose to use to describe and define the
> group.  The methods then
> used to compare groups can get very complicated, but the
> concept of defining and
> organizing groups by their characteristics is not.  We do
> this kind of phenetic
> analysis every time we clean up our desk or put the dishes
> away.  We recognize
> things with similar characteristics go together.  (Except
> you wouldn't think so
> to see my desk -- or my kitchen, for that matter.)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> On Behalf Of Beth Long
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:00 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming
> conventions
> >
> > Why not just say STR-clades and SNP-clades? I don't
> like
> > "pheno-" and "clado-", as it just keeps the squabble
> going.
> > Newcomers to the list will keep asking what the heck a
>
> > "clado-clade" is, and we'll be off and running again.
> >  
> > I vote we move on (I don't think the average person
> has a
> > clue what "phenetic analysis" is, but if we want to
> know, we
> > can "google" it rather than have it explained to us on
> this list).
> >  
> > And as I'm sure you have discovered, you can't
> "police"
> > language, anyway, and you'll just drive yourself nuts
> trying.
> >  
> > Beth
> >
> > --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Diana Gale Matthiesen <>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <>
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming
> conventions
> > To:
> > Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 11:37 AM
> >
> >
> > I stand corrected, again.  I should not call it the
> > "original" meaning.
> > However, once cladistics arose as a methodology, in
> the
> > 1960s, a distinction
> > began to be made, at least among paleontologists and
> > systematists, such that
> > "clade" was narrowly defined to mean only a group
> created
> > cladistically.  If my
> > understanding of the word is peculiar to me or to my
> field,
> > I'll shut up about
> > it and bow to the majority usage here, though I'm
> surprised
> > that anyone working
> > in evolutionary biology would not want to use the
> narrower
> > definition.  I think
> > we've given up the use of a valuable term, but so be
> it. 
> >
> > But how, now, do we distinguish, in conversation,
> between
> > clades arrived at
> > through cladistic analysis and clades arrived at
> through
> > phenotypic or phenetic
> > analysis.   Clado-clades and pheno-clades?  The
> real point of
> > my entering the
> > thread is that there is a difference and the
> difference
> > matters, very much,
> > whatever you call them.
> >
> > Pheno-clades mask convergence, while clado-clades
> uncover it. 
> >  The most obvious
> > example of which is that the same STR motif can occur
> in more than one
> > haplogroup.  SNP-defined haplogroups are true
> clado-clades. 
> > Groups of matching
> > STRs are pheno-clades.
> >
> > Diana
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> On Behalf Of Jim T
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: [DNA] My yDNA - puzzled by naming
> conventions
> > >
> > >
> > > You have claimed before that you are using the
> word "clade"
> > > in its original definition, and I corrected you
> in this post
> > > in October:
> > >
> > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/20
> 08-10/1224087864
> > > Please reread it.  The word "clade" was in use
> long before
> > > cladistic methods were invented.
> > >
> > > Jim Turner
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>
> >
> with the word
> > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body
> > of the message
> >
> >
> >
> >       
> > 
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>
> >
> with the word
> > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body
> > of the message
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the
> subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>      
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the
> subject and the body of the message
>




This thread: