GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1243119029


From: "RICHARD KENYON" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:50:29 -0700
References: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP><F3260C67038447D691C57DA40235C9BD@DadPC><BAY103-DS542C278CBC8454402E3FDC8590@phx.gbl><E029C7EB508D4240ABBC82FF79EF2880@DadPC><D224267F0DF14BD8A518023A8C3BBD05@HP><D229EA95EF5846F6A649BE48C7C77B3F@DadPC><D345CA25-03D3-4C15-ADE4-BB40FE7B2DD0@vizachero.com><0EE61664FADD4C7681EA92A086AC2F59@DadPC> <BE1B556A-0275-4DBA-9243-6429162AE6B0@vizachero.com><6A6F982E4EFF4F22907CD70B2BE8B169@john><001501c9dbd4$3bd93490$b38b9db0$@lowedna@baileyconnection.com><F3E0DEF2-1731-4337-81F2-6F54AD9124EF@vizachero.com><4E39166D60DE4A778E86AA3B6DCC67B8@DadPC>
In-Reply-To: <c70.48db856b.3746c53c@aol.com><47C9E3601A204606AB17BF56D6CAD43F@DadPC><410B3974F11940B7978CC7552E0A95A0@HP><F3260C67038447D691C57DA40235C9BD@DadPC><BAY103-DS542C278CBC8454402E3FDC8590@phx.gbl><E029C7EB508D4240ABBC82FF79EF2880@DadPC><D224267F0DF14BD8A518023A8C3BBD05@HP><D229EA95EF5846F6A649BE48C7C77B3F@DadPC><D345CA25-03D3-4C15-ADE4-BB40FE7B2DD0@vizachero.com><0EE61664FADD4C7681EA92A086AC2F59@DadPC> <BE1B556A-0275-4DBA-9243-6429162AE6B0@vizachero.com><6A6F982E4EFF4F22907CD70B2BE8B169@john><001501c9dbd4$3bd93490$b38b9db0$@lowedna@baileyconnection.com><F3E0DEF2-1731-4337-81F2-6F54AD9124EF@vizachero.com><4E39166D60DE4A778E86AA3B6DCC67B8@DadPC>


The problem is with the S-series of SNPs. They are proprietary SNPs introduced by EA without disclosing such things as a set of primers to be use or exactly what mutation is involved. Only in a few cases have equivalent SNPs been found that appear in dbSNP. It is often difficult to say who was first and ISOGG has been careful to sidestep this by listing equivalent SNPs in alphabetic order and stating that the listing order in no way infers the order of discovery. The way in which SNPs are named is quite arbitrary: the initial letter indicates the lab and this is followed by whatever number that lab decides upon. As the ISOGG document states, the various labs use the following letters: L, M, N, P, PK,S, U, and V.

The two naming schemes were not introduced by ISOGG. They were proposed earlier in the 2002 YCC paper, "A nomenclature system for the tree of human Y-chromosomal binary haplogroups", published in Genome Research, vol. 12, pp. 339-348.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter A. Kincaid<mailto:>
To: <mailto:>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup naming conventions (was NPE)


Sounds good to me.

The more I thought about it, to force consistency, how
about ISOGG sticking to the SNP ID of the first one that
went public (ex. R-S21 versus R-U106/R-M405).



This thread: