GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-02 > 1297512962


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 6, Issue 141
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:16:02 -0500
References: <mailman.20291.1297369649.2081.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> <20110210161010.N3LGH.1170777.imail@fed1rmwml31><AANLkTimZ_Xp6x_PDr820XL4RMWgJ3tS2Nc=xJDgqjD_X@mail.gmail.com><000f01cbca9e$1dcae1f0$5960a5d0$@dgmweb.net>
In-Reply-To: <000f01cbca9e$1dcae1f0$5960a5d0$@dgmweb.net>


Paul is correct. I don't think any biologist would call a
mitochondrion a "chromosome" (not when they were worried about being
correct, at least).

The Wikipedia article Diana cited does not actually support her
contradiction of Paul. And the Wikipedia article on mitochondria
contains this: "A mitochondrion contains DNA, which is organized as
several copies of a single, circular chromosome."

In other words, the mitochondria contain chromosomes. They are not,
themselves, chromosomes.

VV


On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> I agree that in the "traditional" definition of "chromosome" -- the
> ancient one I was taught in school -- mitochondrial DNA would not be
> considered a chromosome, but I'm afraid that meaning appears to have
> changed:

This thread: