Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268376768

From: Sasson Margaliot <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:52:48 +0200
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><>
In-Reply-To: <>

These groups are defined. SNPs are discovered, and almost all occurrences of
SNPs belong to the class of "private SNPs". In some of the cases, it is not
easy to decide which is which, and there may be some disagreement among the
experts, who eventually have to decide.

So, in very obvious way, deciding which SNPs will be accepted into the Tree
(and allowed to define a "group") is matter of decision.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Aaron Hill <> wrote:

> I have to side with Ken on this one. These groups are discovered. They are
> not 'defined' by anyone except nature and human history. It is clear that
> many people making the 'definitions' make mistakes, as in I1a being
> reclassified I1 after some discoveries.
> -- Aaron
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen
> <>wrote:
> > 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.

This thread: