GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268683844
From: Sasson Margaliot <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:10:44 +0200
It is not about nature of the process, it is about policy.
The name like M359.3 is good, because it's here to stay. When new instance
of the same change is discovered, the new one will become M359.4, nothing
needs to be renamed.
For a good system of tagging, the stability is a very important property.
Writers of scientific papers do not use letter-digit-letter-digit
designations anymore, because by the time article is published chances are
the designation already will mean something else. But the designation like
The designation like "J-M359" is stable, and naturally wins
the completion and is preferred by writers.
The tree can grow all it wants, the smart policy of tagging (which is the
one actually used by writers) is already perfectly stable.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen
> It is not a "game," it is the nature of the process. As our knowledge
> the tree grows more branches. The only way to stabilize the names is to
> doing research and freeze the tree in its present state. Would that be
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: On Behalf Of
> > Sasson Margaliot
> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:00 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> > The constant renaming of YDNA lineages is an addictive game,
> > played by half-dozen important experts. If this game helps them
> > to stay focused on their ground-breaking research, why not?
> > Why would anybody pay attention to these renaming games? The
> > fluid notation has no use.
> > Sasson
> 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
|Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA by Sasson Margaliot <>|