Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268508011

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:20:11 -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><D7C366EF2B1D47A89D465B482BD0B343@HP><><0AAEE7A9F5B949C68C94CFFDA0716573@HP>
In-Reply-To: <0AAEE7A9F5B949C68C94CFFDA0716573@HP>


You need to go back to basics. Tags do NOT make clades. Ancestry
makes clades.

Any accepted definition of "clade" will reveal that your obsession
with "tags" is misplaced.

Try this definition of "clade": A monophyletic or holophyletic taxon;
a group of organisms which includes the most recent common ancestor of
all of its members and all of the descendants of that most recent
common ancestor.

How would you propose to alter the common meaning of "clade" such that
it required a "tag"?


On Mar 13, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> He said "tags" (genetic mutations) do not make the clades, that
> demographic
> events make (define) the clades. I don't know how much clearer (and
> wrong) he
> could have been.

This thread: