Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268498268

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:37:48 -0500
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><><><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP><013801cac216$a3a77450$5e82af48@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <013801cac216$a3a77450$5e82af48@Ken1>

I'm sorry, Ken, but words are important, and the terminology of science is
especially important. If you are going to communicate unambiguously, especially
in a technical field, you have to use the agreed-upon terminology for the field.
You've given your idiosyncratic, personal definition to a technical term that
has a precise -- and quite different -- meaning, to the obfuscation of those who
don't realize what you're doing.

The Y-DNA haplotree is a cladogram, arrived at cladistically, using the polarity
of SNP mutations to form monophyletic clades. It behooves all of us to use the
technical meaning of the word clade *on this list*. It is difficult enough to
explain cladistics to people -- an understanding of which is important to anyone
studying human phylogeny -- without confusing them by using non-standard
meanings for its terminology.

The "groups" to which you refer, ones defined by their "demographic properties,"
are more accurately labeled "populations."


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:03 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> ----- 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: