Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268517454

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:57:34 -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><><6D9FD7E250D74B4B8D0B779135D3520B@HP><>
In-Reply-To: <>

I have never said clades could only be defined by SNPs, unless you mean the
Y-DNA haplotree, which is a cladogram built from SNP mutations. You can make a
cladogram out of almost anything; and, traditionally, the traits most often used
were morphological, not genetic. Cladograms based on genetic mutations are a
great advance over ones based on morphology, but both produce cladograms
defining clades.

As for the old one about a sound in the forest, that one rests entirely on your
definition of sound. If you mean that the path of evolution exits independent
of our knowledge of it, I have no argument, whatsoever, with that concept. But
there is nothing in the way of "clades" to be discovered on that path, unless
you supply the criterion for drawing the boundaries between them, and that makes
clades human constructs.

You will likely never agree with me that a "clade" is a human construct, one
based on the results of a cladistic analysis. The fact that cladograms based on
different traits will produce clades with different boundaries should clue you
in to the fact that these are constructs. So, I suggest we agree to disagree.
I'm tired of this discussion, and I'm certain the list is, too.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Vincent Vizachero
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> I should clarify. My previous post may lead to the impression that
> you are not wrong, but you are in one sense.
> Clades are defined solely by ancestry, not by the presence or
> absence of SNPs or other character trait.
> A clade is a group containing an ancestor and all the descendants
> thereof. Period. That clade exists whether or not we have
> discovered a SNP to "define" it.
> To maintain that there can be no clade except those
> associated with a SNP is logically equivalent to arguing
> that a tree makes no sound when it falls in an uninhabited
> forest.
> VV
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
> > Y-DNA haplogroups (clades) are not defined by their demographic
> > properties, they
> > are defined by the polarity of their SNP mutations. They do not
> > arise out of
> > demographic conditions, they arise via mutation, and their
> > boundaries are
> > determined by their position on the Y-DNA SNP cladogram (haplotree).
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of the message

This thread: