GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268515958
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:32:38 -0500
I never said, "tags." Ken said, "tags." I think it's a bad use of the word,
too. Please re-read the backquote in your own message.
I agree with the definition of monophyletic clade you just presented, which is
the standard/classic definition. If you had closely read any of my previous
messages, you would already know I would agree with that meaning because it's
the meaning I've been fighting for all along.
If you're going to give my messages such a cursory read, please stop responding
because this last interchange accomplishes absolutely nothing.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Vincent Vizachero
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> 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.
Note that "He" refers to Ken.
|Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA by "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>|