Haplogroup convention ...

Question

Is it preferable to enter the Haplogroups by their names (e.g. G-M201 or G-Z727) or to just enter the full ISOGG designation (e.g. G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a5) ??

I suppose the latter would be preferable if we were able to do wildcard searches by DNA  (e.g. G2a*) - since then we would match others that have taken lower STR tests or are distant relatives (100+ years)

Answer 1

If the ISOGG designations were still useful, your idea about wildcard matching would be great.  But unfortunately, they have some serious issues - they're essentially deprecated now, and that lettering system cannot handle early insertions in a feasible manner, and they are significantly behind FTDNA and YFull in branches and SNP's.  The YFull tree appears to be based on the ISOGG tree, but has left it behind, and has switched to labeling branches by a primary SNP.  So has FTDNA, and they are even farther ahead in naming SNP's and branches.  So if you test at FTDNA, you will almost certainly receive a 'terminal' SNP that YFull doesn't yet have, and well beyond what ISOGG has.

I prefer something I like to call a 'haplotrail', the trail of SNP's from the ancients to your current haplogroup.  It let's anyone compare trails, no matter where they have tested or how far they have tested.  And the listed SNP's become searchable this way.  For much more on this problem, see my comments here, plus the subsequent comments.

Comments

Thanks Rob.

So the short answer is that there isn't really a convention because there isn't a standard system of naming.  

I can see your point though .. my Terminal haplogroup was CTS2230 on FTDNA .. which is quite high up .. then I was informed by ISOGG volunteer that I tested negative for the four subgroups of CTS2230 - so I was the first in subgroup 5 ..     So if I put my terminal subgroup ..   it wouldn't mean anything to anybody except ISOGG ..

I think a haplotrail is confusing too - because each branch along that haplotrail can be called by many different names.   I think the ISOGG's system is the best of what there is .. but there needs to be some standard that dictates how new haplogroups are to be named so that everyone can follow it in a predictive way.

For the time being - I'll leave it as G-M201 .. since I seem to be the only Ward DNA tester with that.

Thanks

---

Rob et al. - Not sure you should handicap YFull too greatly; they are using the most recent naming nomenclature for SNPs that can be viewed at yBrowse.org. And that service serves all of the testing/analysis companies through YSeq.com (Thomas & Ingrid Krahn). Haplotypes don't work nearly as well at terminal (unmatched) markers for separating family lines among matches. The haplo-trail is more commonly how we (project admins) communicate otherwise truncated/ancient branches of the haplotree.

---

Honestly, you've stumbled on the reason for ISOGG trying to standardize in the first palce...it was getting to be a huge mess, and they all knew it and took action...believe me, it's much better today then years past for naming... Equivalents are still being used, usually so one knows which lab or organization it was that first "discovered" or identified that SNP... Once it gets confirmed by another is usually when ISOGG steps in and "names" it.... if my understanding of that process is correct...fwiw

---

Really? ISOGG is a dead org. The dam broke and they have not kept up in any meaningful way since 2015... It's not even a fair argument - the impact ISOGG had is history at this point and there nothing about that group that is still relevant, much less substantive. It's a nostalgia that keeps anyone caring about them at this point. Well-meaning? yes. but it's been taken over by angry people who disregard uncontrolled progress - seriously. Have you had a discussion with CC Moore? she runs the place now and she's a complete idiot. Quote me.

Answer 2

See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Haplogroups

“Current convention for the Y-DNA haplogroups has been to adopt a shorter method of identifying the haplogroup and subclade individuals belong to than as described in the ISOGG Wiki. By listing the major branch of the haplogroup followed by the terminal SNP the system becomes much easier for non-scientists to track where they belong on the various DNA trees.

For example, using the short-hand method, I1a2a1a1a1 becomes I-L338, and R1b1a2a1a1c1a2b2a1a becomes R-FGC13609.”

Comments

However the following does not appear to be correct “By listing the major branch of the haplogroup followed by the terminal SNP the system becomes much easier for non-scientists to track where they belong on the various DNA trees.“

The longer method makes it easier to determine the hierarchy of one’s Y haplogroup.  However the longer method will become out of date when a new discovery is made in the hierarchy.

Answer 3

The later is definitely useful when you're searchng through Journals...especially older Journals (10+years guesstimated), because you never know which nomenclature they are using and its too tedious to try to keep up with all the equivalents...lol By just in causual conversation it's much easier to use the short-hand. :)

Comments

I'm sympathetic to your position but "older Journals" are no longer relevant or significant at this point. No one has kept up the older nomenclature or transpositions to the newer haplogroup/haplotype notations for reference purposes. All the noble considerations intended the flood of new SNPs and Y-tree markers have greatly exceeded the need to even try to make older notation equivalents possible. I suggest using Yfull.com and any other supplemental databases you can find but understand - there is no commercial or volunteer purpose in going back.

---

You do your thing, I'll do mine. ;)

---

Relevance?