GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1242997140


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:59:00 -0400
References: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP><F3260C67038447D691C57DA40235C9BD@DadPC><BAY103-DS542C278CBC8454402E3FDC8590@phx.gbl><E029C7EB508D4240ABBC82FF79EF2880@DadPC><BAY103-DS7F050475FC12528C11C14C8560@phx.gbl><723434F1505A4F0B9EF786EB3E517A3A@HP>
In-Reply-To: <723434F1505A4F0B9EF786EB3E517A3A@HP>


Correcting myself... Apparently, there is a genealogical Henry system that is
hierarchical. I was thinking of the Henry system for fingerprints, which isn't.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:02 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
>
> These comparisons are "apples vs. oranges." The Henry
> system, Dewey decimal
> system, and the Library of Congress system are not
> hierarchical and certainly
> not phylogenetic. In these systems, the contents of the
> groupings and the order
> of the groupings in the system are both entirely arbitrary.
> There is nothing
> inherent in the objects being classified that determines
> their classification.
>
> In contrast, the subclades of the Y-DNA cladogram (haplotree)
> are not arbitrary
> groupings, nor is the order of the groupings arbitrary. The
> evolutionary
> sequence of SNP mutations forces the ordering of each
> subclade and determines
> the contents of each subclade. The phylogenetic
> classification of evolutionary
> organisms is inherent within the organisms -- exactly the
> opposite of an
> arbitrary system like the organization of books in a library.
>
> The hierarchical naming system used in the labeling of the
> Y-DNA cladogram has
> been arrived at through decades of experience by literally
> thousands of
> scientists to be the most logical, most objective, most concise, most
> informative, and most easily understood way for such a
> cladogram to be labeled.
> To substitute an arbitrary, un-informative naming system for
> an objective,
> informative one would be a monumental step backwards -- and
> truly chaotic.
>
> Diana
>
> P.S. The mtDNA haplotree is also a cladogram, the subclades
> of which are also
> named hierarchically.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~oven/phylotree/builds/Build_4/mtDNA_tree
> _main.htm
> The only difference in the nomenclature is that the main
> mtDNA haplogroups were
> named alphabetically as they were discovered, rather than
> being labeled
> alphabetically in the order of their evolutionary appearance,
> so the main
> branches of the mtDNA haplotree are not in alphabetical order
> they way they are
> in the Y-DNA haplotree.
> http://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/2008-HaploChart_GR_lores.pdf
> But, otherwise, there's no fundamental difference in the way
> the two trees are
> named. If the mtDNA tree seems more complex, it's probably
> because the
> cladogram appears to have more nodes (I haven't actually
> counted the nodes on
> either tree, but my impression is that the mtDNA tree has more).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: On Behalf Of RICHARD KENYON
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:29 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
> >
> > As I've understood it, the Y haplogroup naming system is a
> > Henry system, as is the Dewey decimal system used by many
> > libraries. It seems to me your scheme is like giving
> > classification numbers 1 through N to the books in a library
> > of N books. That's chaos! Do you suggest that we also discard
> > the Dewey decimal scheme and the alternate LC classification
> > schemes? If you want to find something to complain about,
> > take a look at the classification scheme for mitochondrial
> > DNA. That's much more complex for a number of reasons. I
> > certainly wish MT classification could be as simple as Y is
> > (but I don't even think it can happen).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Peter A. Kincaid<mailto:>
> > To: <mailto:>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
> >
> >
> > I think one has to step back and try to look
> > from the perspective of a newbie versus
> > someone who has been using the current
> > system for sometime. There is nothing
> > really intuitive or hierarchial about something
> > like R1b1b2a1a. One only understands
> > something like this after the system has
> > been explained to them. Furthermore, with
> > different conventions for naming SNPs and
> > their position in the hierarchy subject to change,
> > everyone at some point has to go back and
> > review the currect tree to reset their bearings.
> >
> > The point I was trying to make was that
> > numbers are easier on the eyes and easier
> > to remember than what we have now. I
> > will concede the point that people also like
> > hierarchial systems.
> >
> > That said, since this is a genealogy group why
> > isn't a standard genealogical numbering systems
> > being used rather than the corrupted version we
> > have now. What we are dealing with here is a
> > descending numbering system. The Henry system
> > is perhaps more used/understood. If one can't shake
> > the initial A-T grouping, we could at least use the
> > Henry system for the subsequent generations. For
> > example, R1428 would translate as the last point being
> > the 8th branch of the 2nd branch of the 4th branch
> > of the 1st branch of R group (for rare occasion
> > where there are more than 9 branches in a generation
> > than 10 is represented by X, 11 by A, 12 by B, 13
> > by C, etc.).
> >
> > Instead of having a long accepted system like the
> > Henry system people here have put together
> > a corrupted Pama system that really is no help and
> > should be changed.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "RICHARD KENYON"
> > <<mailto:>>
> > To:
> <<mailto:>>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:39 PM
> > Subject: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
> >
> >
> > > Your idea for labeling haplogroups would certainly be
> > non-intuitive,
> > > showing nothing of the hierarchial structure. Your
> > suggested labels could
> > > move to new positions on the tree as the phylogenetic
> > tree develops in the
> > > future. To determine one's position on the tree, a copy
> > of the latest
> > > version would have to be at hand. You must agree that
> > this would be a real
> > > pain. I think we all hope the tree will continue to grow
> > and develop new
> > > branches with occasional moving of some twigs to
> > different branches. It is
> > > hoped by many as subclades get further subdivided we will
> > more accurately
> > > understand migration patterns and our origins.
> > >
> > > As you may know, the YCC long ago suggested an alternate,
> > abbreviated
> > > notation. Thus, taking your example R1b1b2a1a is simply
> > R-M467. Here M467
> > > is the furtherest downstream derived SNP. This seems far
> > more meaningful
> > > than your arbitrary numbering suggestion. However SNP
> > naming is arbitrary
> > > and are not always unique. For example, M467 is also
> > named S29 and U198.
> > > So with the abbreviated YCC notation, it's necessary to
> > have something
> > > such as the ISOGG document handy to determine the
> > explicit name. I prefer
> > > the "long" notation as it explicitly specifies the
> > location on the tree.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Peter A.
> > Kincaid<mailto:<mailto:
> > patico.ca>>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:<m
> >
> ailto:%3Cmailto:>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [DNA] NPE
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > <mailto:GENEALOGY-DNA-reques
> > t@rootsweb.com> 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: