GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293655066


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:37:55 -0700
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1><041023E5-0C60-4B09-B9C7-ED6288FC136F@vizachero.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>


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.


[[ When you threw in the phrase "... whether snp labels have yet been.....
or not" in your original message, I concluded you were talking, like I was
thinking, about the actual underlying ytree in nature determined by the
history of human demographics, and not the sequence of epiphenomenal
snp-defined trees we have had through time dependent on the quirks and
specifics of snp discoveries.

The underlying tree in its various regions has certain ratios of branch line
lengths per bifurcating node, and ratio of bifurcating nodes to trifurcating
nodes, etc. While we are far from having the required statistics to say
much, those ratios can potentially convey information about the demographic
realities of various ancient folk. Ken ]]



This thread: