GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-06 > 1277509813
From: Jonathan Day <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] mtDNA descriptions- set in stone?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Well, I'm not sure quite what you mean here.
In order to be useful as a term, a "haplogroup" has to be a set that can or does contain subsets, where there is some characteristic which unambiguously either allocates something to that set or which unambiguously allocates it to a different set.
Yes it can be done by a lay-person. It doesn't take an expert to set up an identification key system (which is all any of this is), provided they have the information necessary to make unambiguous identifications.
If you have two identification key systems based on different views of the same information (genes and species, for example) then those views must eventually converge. Since it is the same information, then by definition at the highest resolution they must be the same views.
(If you are operating at the fundamental level, all views become equally valid and all views become interchangeable, no matter how those views are defined. It is convention that you use the view that is best for a specific subject, but there is nothing that requires different subjects to use the same view.)
--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote:
> From: Vincent Vizachero <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] mtDNA descriptions- set in stone?
> Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 9:49 AM
> I don't subscribe to the belief that
> the definition of "haplogroup"
> requires a "defining" mutation.
> The word "haplogroup" was coined in an effort to
> distinguish two
> different types of clades: those based on haploid
> genomes (e.g. in a
> gene tree) and those based on diploid genomes (e.g. in a
> species tree).
> Generally I am not motivated by a need for some "official"
> body to
> ordain something that can be easily oberved by a trained
> lay person.
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
> > [[ not necessarily, certainly not at now and even in
> the future. If y
> > haplogroups are tied to unique collections of UEP-like
> > such as
> > snps as their definitions, there are some clades which
> may never
> > acquire
> > such elevated status, even with full y sequencing ---
> although such
> > clades
> > will probably be the exception given what we know
> about snp mutation
> > rates. ]]
> 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