Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268718258

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA clade naming
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:44:18 -0400
References: <70982D78CDAD4EB2A62F999DBA19A068@HP><>
In-Reply-To: <>

We've been going around on this issue for years...

The changing hierarchical labels are not a "flaw," they're part of the design.
If you don't like the hierarchical names, please use the vernaculars. People
who are serious researchers in the field know the names so well (past and
current), that the changes don't throw them. The system isn't designed to make
it easy for novices to use, it's designed to serve a complex purpose.

Please go to the list archive:
and search on "labels." Another good search term is "hierarchical." You will
find messages addressing every aspect of this issue in excruciating detail.

As for dating your work and stating your standard, yes, you should do so.
Publications are automatically dated and presumably the editor, if not the
author, will make certain the nomenclature is current as of the publication date
and that the standard is stated.

As for the unpublished work we do, the beauty of working on the web is that you
can continually update it. I try to keep my web site nomenclature current, but
I don't always have time -- and apparently I'm behind on at least I2 -- so I do
date the tables I'm using and state the standards:

I follow the FTDNA tree and mangle the ISOGG tree to fit it. I follow Ken's
groupings for Haplogroup I haplotypes, which I reordered and squnched into
FTDNA's haplogroups:

The reason for FTDNA's priority here has nothing to do with the relative merits
of the trees, it's simply a reflection of the fact that I admin six projects at
FTDNA. The last thing I want to do is confuse my members by using clade names
that are different from the ones they're seeing on their member pages.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Irish III DNA
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:47 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA clade naming
> 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: