GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268357786
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:36:26 -0500
References: <email@example.com> <4B992A34.firstname.lastname@example.org> <FCA563F0-DD03-4B1E-A5ED-D1751792324B@vizachero.com> <00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><email@example.com><006701cac158$23a243c0$6ae6cb40$@firstname.lastname@example.org><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1>
Yes, haplogroups are defined because haplogroups are clades, and clades are
defined, not discovered. They're defined by the researcher building the
cladogram who decides on the traits to be included and makes the polarity
determinations for those traits. It's SNPs that are discovered, and I'm not
aware of any "hobbyist" ever discovering one.
There are no Jewish "clades" (beyond individual families) any more than there is
a Jewish "race," unless you want to completely divorce the word "clade" from its
cladistic meaning, which destroys its usefulness as a scientific term.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:28 PM
> To: ;
> Subject: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bbailey.lowedna" <>
> > FTDNA with more markers (and SNPs) tested from their
> > customers has been able to continue defining more and
> > more subclades.
> [[ Clades are discovered, not defined.
> Most all clades have been discovered by hobbyists and some
> academic papers, not FTDNA. The latter are really not
> interested in finding clades, except perhaps some of the
> executives who have a special personal interest in
> Jewish clades. You can say haplogroups are defined,
> however. Ken ]]
|Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA by "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>|