GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > 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
References: <376447.73467.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4B992A34.6060104@san.rr.com><FCA563F0-DD03-4B1E-A5ED-D1751792324B@vizachero.com><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><59b150b1003111148g536d80e5he4ebb561c9048fc0@mail.gmail.com><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><3480483d1003111821h356097c0k9398df8feee1aaf5@mail.gmail.com><3b2a446a1003112252j5c16c392lc9fbf52e805e9407@mail.gmail.com><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><97305A05-75B3-44B6-8433-84FDB790890F@vizachero.com><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP><013801cac216$a3a77450$5e82af48@Ken1><D7C366EF2B1D47A89D465B482BD0B343@HP><AB2EC4B7-6A15-4AA7-BF02-026349415402@vizachero.com><0AAEE7A9F5B949C68C94CFFDA0716573@HP><68F765A7-DC40-4C25-B40C-2180ED7186F5@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <68F765A7-DC40-4C25-B40C-2180ED7186F5@vizachero.com>


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.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Vincent Vizachero
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
>
> Diana,
>
> 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"?
>
> VV
>
>
> 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.


This thread: