GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1243026703


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:11:43 -0400
References: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP><F3260C67038447D691C57DA40235C9BD@DadPC><BAY103-DS542C278CBC8454402E3FDC8590@phx.gbl><E029C7EB508D4240ABBC82FF79EF2880@DadPC><D224267F0DF14BD8A518023A8C3BBD05@HP><D229EA95EF5846F6A649BE48C7C77B3F@DadPC>
In-Reply-To: <D229EA95EF5846F6A649BE48C7C77B3F@DadPC>


On May 22, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:

> I also did at no time say that the current system
> was not hierarchial. I've been saying its a mess
> to follow and a system with mostly numbers would
> be better.

It is a sidetrack, but you did say it:

On May 21, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:

> There is nothing
> really intuitive or hierarchial about something
> like R1b1b2a1a.

The current system has two three advantages over ANY alternative: it
is widely used, it makes sense, and it is flexible. A nomenclature
system with those three characteristics is all but impossible to
replace, so any energy spent fighting it is quixotic at best.

VV


This thread: