Y Chromosome haplogroups

+13 votes
344 views

* Sept Update -- identification  of  positive  F2885 with  - negative  Z3353 has once again caused the ISOGG  nomenclature to change -- we are now (again) shown as  G1a3--further demonstration of the advantage of using the short hand designation

* update: I have become an example of the problem I raised.   My haplogroup has changed from G1a3  to G1a1c -using the ISOGG designation;  however using the terminal  SNP designation,  I remain  Y haplogroup G (F2885)....

I thought that this practical example might  add clarity to the problem for people who may not realize that at least parts of the ISOGG tables have  had significiant changes  in recent years.

iThe ISOGG tree  also contains the caution that position is difficult to determine which implies that the ISOGG designator could well change again 

-----------

when entering Y haplogroup only numbers and letters are allowed   ...  this was good when the ISOGG haplotree was short and simple and looked like it might remain stable.

I suggest allowing the Genographic Project style nomenclature -- and in fact encouraging its use.   The terminal SNP is unlikely to change while the ISOGG designators seem likely to continue to change as new discoveries are made.

BACKGROUND:  because new discoveries are causing  major changes to the ISOGG  haplotree sttructure, and because nomenclature is getting to be  long and confusing, both Familytreedna and the Genographic project are now using "short hand" designators  like  G (F2885)  which identifies the terminal SNP

much of the "traditional"  ISOGG  tree is in such a state of flux that it's hard to rely on a classification (for example -  see Ray Bank' s  OSOGG  haplogroup G tree for the last few years and note all the changes.....    and even when it it stable,   it is sometimes such a jumble of numbers and letters that risk of "typo" is great  (e.g.  G2a1a1a1a1a1b1)

in Policy and Style by William Pool G2G3 (3.0k points)
retagged by Keith Hathaway

2 Answers

+11 votes
An excellent suggestion.  The group letter  + "terminal" SNP are much more suitable than the traditional ISOGG branching descriptions.  The latter cannot function as identifiers, because they are subject to change.  Really the long ISOGG strings should be avoided.
by Robert Shaw G2G1 (1.0k points)
+5 votes

William is correct. 

When members of the DNA Project see others using longhand naming (e.g. R1b1a2a1a2c) it would be helpful if they encourged them to make the correction to the shorthand version (i.e. R-L21).  This will make working with haplogroups more consistant and less confusing.

However most known haplogroups still predate the ancestry in WikiTree (they formed over 2,000 years ago).

Sincerely, Peter

by Peter Roberts G2G6 Pilot (570k points)
edited by Peter Roberts

Related questions

+3 votes
4 answers
384 views asked Apr 10, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)
+12 votes
4 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
2 answers
204 views asked Oct 7, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
685 views asked Oct 12, 2018 in The Tree House by Jessica Hammond G2G6 Mach 3 (31.8k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...