Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268414375

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:19:35 -0500
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><><><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP>
In-Reply-To: <294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP>

Though Ken clearly needs no defense from off-target attacks, let's
not butcher history.

If anyone has been using a sloppy definition of "clade" I don't know
who that could be. Whenever I've seen Ken use the word "clade", that
word has represented a monophyletic group.


On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> Yes, the word "clade" has both a lay definition, meaning simply
> "group," and a
> technical definition, as used in cladistics, meaning a
> *monophyletic* group.
> The Y-DNA haplotree is a cladogram, a product of cladistic
> analysis. Its
> branches are, to the best of our current knowledge, monophyletic
> clades. In
> these discussions, we should be using the technical definition of
> the word. The
> word "group" is still available for other uses.

This thread: