GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293728241


From: Ann Turner <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:57:21 -0800
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1><041023E5-0C60-4B09-B9C7-ED6288FC136F@vizachero.com><AANLkTimjFkDV1HCtdJE+qQtpdP5uwhtLe7mgUwxQ-E_O@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimjFkDV1HCtdJE+qQtpdP5uwhtLe7mgUwxQ-E_O@mail.gmail.com>


It just occurred to me that the time direction (going from present to past
or past to present) would affect the way I am visualizing things. Going from
present to past, I can see it as a bifurcation, where one branch has the
trait (SNP, whatever) and the other one doesn't.

Ann Turner


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Ann Turner <> wrote:

> I'm more dialed in to mtDNA, which is at least qualitatively different
> because the complete sequence is known and the mutation rate is higher. I
> see it as a collection of star-shaped networks, as in the diagram from
> Oxford Ancestors. Haplogroup H is now up to 39 defined subclades.
>
> http://www.dalesinwales.co.uk/dna/matrieve.jpg
>
> Ann Turner
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Vincent Vizachero <
> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


This thread: