GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268714827


From: "Irish III DNA" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA clade naming
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:47:07 +1100
In-Reply-To: <70982D78CDAD4EB2A62F999DBA19A068@HP>


Diana wrote:-

<snip>
So, looking up M359.... I can only find an M359.2, which is a synonym for P41.2
which is the defining SNP for I2a2a. M359.2 may be the more useful name, to
you, but I2a2a is the more useful name, to me.
<snip>
*******************************************************************
The problem with the I2a2a nomenclature is that it is constantly changing as new SNPs are found and added as tags to the yTree. (Ken
states it is now I2a2a1, (at least I think that is what he said it is now) and no doubt will change again)

Take M222. From its discovery and through the 2006-7 ISOGG it was named R1b1c7. With the finding of new SNPs upstream it became
R1b1b2a1b6b in the ISOGG 2008 tree and in the ISOGG 2009-10 tree it is now R1b1b2a1a2f2. R-M222 is easier and will not change.
At ISOGG in 2006, R1b1c meant M269+, but in 2009-10 R1b1c refers to M335+.

Likewise, presently FTDNA calls L21 R1b1b2a1b5 while ISOGG calls the same SNP, L21+ R1b1b2a1a2f

If people insist on using this nomenclature they will need to state the organisation and year of the yTree tree that they are
referring to.

As the number of SNPs found increases weekly? the nomenclature gets longer and longer. I would rather remember R-L226, which will
be constant forever, than R1b1b2a1a2f4 which is likely to change again and again in the future. We are seeing more and more people
using this form of naming haplogroups for good and obvious reasons.

Dennis





This thread: