GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329115832


From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:50:32 -0700
References: <4F387B00.6010002@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F387B00.6010002@comcast.net>


-----Original Message-----
From: Bonnie Schrack
The complaints about the illogical naming of A clades are
understandable, but it's impossible to do it within the normal rules.

[[Normal only in sense of being historical. The freezing of the first
symbol of the haplogroup names even as the tree changes is quite illogical
and counter useful. It's what they do, no more than that. A more sensible
system would use a series of 1 or 2 numbers (with the occasional 3, etc. for
nodes with three or more descending branches)

Every extant haplotype today would have an identity consisting of a series
of such small numbers. For example;

121121232.......... would identify a clade (node) reached from genetic Adam
by taking branch 1 at first node, then taking branch choice 2 at second node
reached, then branch 1 choices at the third and fourth nodes
reached.....then branch choice 3 at the unusual eighth node reached, then
branch 2 at 9th node reached...... All haplotypes with those same first 9
small numbers would define a particular clade associated with a particular
node of the tree. "a" and "b" and the occasional "c" etc. could be used
instead of 1,2,3... for benefit of the numerophobes. A typical extant
haplotype would need in the ball park of only 40 node choice designations
specifying his uniqueness.

As new nodes are found, some of these haplotype identification code numbers
or letters would change, and some would not, depending on where in the tree
the new nodes were found. KN ]]


As Cruciani laconically put it, A is not a monophyletic clade. It isn't
one clade at all; it's a collection of distinct clades. [[But that can be
said about all the named clades under present system --- either presently or
eventually. KN ]]





This thread: