GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268715375


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA clade naming (Ken Nordtvedt)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:56:15 -0400
References: <7d1f35e34c9d7dcebfe2bcd69c5ca9286c8fa7b9@localhost><4.3.1.2.20100315211106.027b7ff0@mail.spacey.net>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20100315211106.027b7ff0@mail.spacey.net>


That's the reason I've said, I believe several times, now, that it's a semantic
difference we are not going to agree upon. It was this difference that started
the debate, it is this difference that continues the debate, and it's this
difference that will keep the debate going endlessly, unless we agree to
disagree. Shall we?

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of John E Mellick
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA clade naming (Ken Nordtvedt)
>
> I think the following post shows part of what the problem is about.
>
> Diana insists clades are defined by SNPs,
> but Ken discovers clades, for which SNPs haven't been found yet.
> Dinaric and Isles are Ken's names for those undefined clades.
>
> JohnM
>
>


This thread: