Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268420580

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:03:00 -0700
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><><><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>

> You said:
> "When I said clades were properties of the y tree (part of independently
> existing nature) whether or not yet discovered by any of us, I forgot to
> add
> that the clades were demographic properties of the y tree with or without
> (independent of) any mutational tags (STRs, SNPs, etc.) we had as tools to
> find the clades. The tags do not make the clades; the demographic events
> collectively make the clades."
> So defined, these are not phylogenetic clades, nor is the process
> cladistics.
> It's cultural anthropology.

I believe my position on what y tree clades are has rather completely been
spelled out over the past. What you choose to call them or reject calling
them is not important.

If I ever uttered the word "cladistics" to describe what is going on, I
pledge to wash my mouth out with soap.

This thread: