GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1243031976


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:39:36 -0300
References: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP><F3260C67038447D691C57DA40235C9BD@DadPC><BAY103-DS542C278CBC8454402E3FDC8590@phx.gbl><E029C7EB508D4240ABBC82FF79EF2880@DadPC><D224267F0DF14BD8A518023A8C3BBD05@HP><D229EA95EF5846F6A649BE48C7C77B3F@DadPC><BAY103-DS7E9343A069B72BA9ED867C8560@phx.gbl><2854EF004925457CBC0CC4E6721FA94D@DadPC><BAY103-DS5F7C7F10489FB6ECB91A0C8560@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-DS5F7C7F10489FB6ECB91A0C8560@phx.gbl>


I suggested this because I recognize it is near impossible
to get the clique to change. Small steps are better than no
steps.


----- Original Message -----
From: "RICHARD KENYON" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)


> Thanks for getting specific. If I'm not mistaken what you've done is use
> the standard notation, only substituting 1, 2, 3, etc. for a, b, c, etc.
> and placing a decimal point every three characters. Why not just stick
> with the current notation and let people optionally insert decimal points
> if they so wish? Big deal!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter A. Kincaid<mailto:>
> To: <mailto:>
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
>
>
> Well I'll take your challenge to be constructive and
> continue debating ideas. Since the bulk of the
> counter arguments dealt with maintaining a hierarchy
> then I will simply suggest a modified Henry system
> where the first character is a letter to maintain the
> established A-T hierarchy. The rest of the branches
> follow the Henry system with the numbers grouped
> in threes to assist recognition and memory. As an
> example, using the current ISOGG tree for the R
> haplogroup one gets instead the following:
>
> R M207/UTY2, M306/S1, P224, P227, P229, P232, P280, P285, S4, S8, S9
> R* -
> R1 M173/P241, P225, P231, P233, P234, P236, P238, P242, P286, P294
> R1* -
> R11 L62, L63
> R11* -
> R11.1 SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2
> R11.1* -
> R11.11 M17, M198
> R11.11* -
> R11.111 M56
> R11.112 M157
> R11.113 M64.2, M87, M204
> R11.114 P98
> R11.115 PK5
> R12 M343
> R12* -
> R12.1 P25
> R12.1* -
> R12.11 M18
> R12.12 P297
> R12.12* -
> R12.121 M73
> R12.122 M269, S3, S10, S13, S17
> R12.122* -
> R12.122.1 L23/S141, L49
> R12.122.1* -
> R12.122.11 L51
> R12.122.11* -
> R12.122.111 L11/S127, L52, P310/S129, P311/S128
> R12.122.111* -
> R12.122.111.1 M405/S21/U106
> R12.122.111.1* -
> R12.122.111.11 M467/S29/U198
> R12.122.111.12 P107
> R12.122.111.13 DYS439(null)/L1/S26
> R12.122.111.14 L48/S162
> R12.122.111.14* -
> R12.122.111.141 L47
> R12.122.111.141* -
> R12.122.111.141.1 L44, L45, L46
> R12.122.111.2 P312/S116
> R12.122.111.2* -
> R12.122.111.21 M65
> R12.122.111.22 M153
> R12.122.111.23 M167/SRY2627
> R12.122.111.24 S28/U152
> R12.122.111.24* -
> R12.122.111.241 M126
> R12.122.111.242 M160
> R12.122.111.243 L2/S139
> R12.122.111.243* -
> R12.122.111.243.1 L20/S144
> R12.122.111.25 S68
> R12.122.111.26 L21/S145
> R12.122.111.26* -
> R12.122.111.261 M37
> R12.122.111.262 M222/USP9Y+3636
> R12.122.111.263 P66
> R12.13 M335
> R2 M124, P249, P267
>
> Sure better visually and easier to recall. You also
> instantly know the position. M37 (R12.122.111.261)
> would be the 1st branch of R12.122.111.26 which is
> the 6th branch of R12.122.111.2 which is the 2nd
> branch of R12.122.111, etc.
>
> Peter A. Kincaid
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RICHARD KENYON"
> <<mailto:>>
> To: <<mailto:>>
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 5:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
>
>
> > If you think you have a better "by the numbers" scheme, go ahead and
> make
> > a specific proposal, giving your alternate numeric names for the
> existing
> > ones. And be sure to include all subclades in the 2009 ISOGG tree. That
> > seems to be the best way to resolve this controversy. Don't expect
> others
> > to do this for you. So put up or shut up.


This thread: