GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1242942716


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] NPE
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:51:56 -0300
References: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP>
In-Reply-To: <410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP>


I don't see where you got the notion I was interested in
stability. I have been an advocate of terminology that
that is accurate/representative/understandable/concise.

I think the R1b1b2a1a type scheme is a mess also.
As more subsets come on board we will likely see
something like R1b1b2a1a2a1a1a2a ... How is
that helpful? I think it would have been better to
have a numbering scheme once the intial letters were
used up. In the R group for example, initial subsets
could have been assigned R0, R10, R20 ... R90.
Then there could be 9 more breakdowns of the
initial group (ie. R0 gets R1-R9). When this initial
allottment runs out 10 more can be taken from the
next 100, and then the next 100, etc (ie. R0 group
gets R100-R109 then R200-R209, then R300-R309,
etc.). There is no limit to this and your get more
appealing labels (i.e. something like R5500 is better
than R1b1b2a1a2a1a1a2a...

Peter. A. Kincaid



----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] NPE


> The situations are not at all comparable because the names of haplogroup
> subclades are not arbitrary designations. They are dictated by the
> hierarchy of
> the Y-DNA SNP cladogram (haplotree), which changes every time a new SNP is
> discovered and located on the tree. If you are waiting for stability in
> the
> hierarchical nomenclature of Y-DNA SNP subclades, don't hold your breath.
> It
> will keep changing as long as our knowledge keeps increasing.
>
> If you want stability in the terminology of genealogy, use the
> accepted/traditional terminology and don't create new terms as substitutes
> for
> terms that already exist.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: On Behalf Of Peter A. Kincaid
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:26 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [DNA] NPE
>>
>> You are just too funny. Perhaps you should
>> tell that to those who said I was part of R1b1c
>> then R1b1cS21+/R1b1c9, to R1b1b2g to now
>> R1b1b2a1a.
>>
>> I think the reality is that there is a circle of self
>> supporting people who come up with the terms
>> and stand by them until they see fit - even if the
>> term no longer has relevancy.


This thread: