GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293650718


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:25:18 -0500
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1>


Essentially, I did mean to contrast bifurcations with higher-order
splits (trifurcation, tetrafurcation, etc.). It's not a novel
thought, for sure, but it is an area in which we've seen some progress
in published trees.

Remember back to 2007, when R1b1c had eleven subclades (R1b1c1 through
R1b1c11)?

Current published trees still have an excess of such nodes, but SNP
discovery is leading to rearrangements fast enough that they are
systematically being culled.

VV



On Dec 29, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

> "bifurcations" instead of what else? Trifurcations, etc.? It is
> not clear
> to me what you were driving at in the above?

This thread: