Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Latest ISOGG R Tree

Expand Messages
  • GTC
    In a previous post Charles mentioned that someone has suggested an on-off button for the tree whereby users could switch the displaying of private SNPs on or
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      In a previous post Charles mentioned that someone has suggested an on-off button for the tree whereby users could switch the displaying of private SNPs on or off at the click of a button. (Perhaps the default condition should be "off".)

      That's an eminently sensible and logical solution -- as long as it doesn't require duplicate pages to be maintained behind the scenes. I don't know if the software supports conditional code on each node of the tree in order to simplify implementation of such a feature.

      Charles mentioned that he went into bat for such a feature but that none of his ISOGG colleagues even responded to the proposition.

      ISOGG comprises more than just the committee. If the ISOGG membership at large were to lobby for such a feature then the committee, if it considers itself representative of members wishes, ought to take notice.

      --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Janzen" <tjanzen@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Mike, Brian, David, Charles, and others,
      >
      > The reality is that the ISOGG tree has plenty of "clout".
      > The genetic genealogy community is looking to the ISOGG Y tree and Thomas
      > Krahn's draft tree all of the time for authoritative answers. These are the
      > de facto standards. Whether or not the scientific community is publishing
      > articles that follow the ISOGG Y tree is for the most part irrelevant for
      > us. At this point the YCC has made itself irrelevant by not maintaining an
      > up-to-date Y tree. As soon as the YCC updates their tree, ISOGG will
      > incorporate anything new from the YCC tree into the ISOGG tree and then
      > within several months the YCC tree will again be out-of-date. No matter
      > what the scientific community wants to think, the ISOGG tree will continue
      > to be the de facto standard as long as all of us continue to work
      > cooperatively and diligently to maintain the ISOGG tree. Any reasonable
      > scientist/geneticist who truly knows what is going on is without doubt
      > consulting both the ISOGG Y tree and Thomas Krahn's draft tree on a regular
      > basis.
      >
      > I agree with David Reynolds about the private SNP situation.
      > Private SNPs are going to become more and more important for genetic
      > genealogists as the Y SNP tree continues to be refined. It is very
      > important that private SNPs continue to be tracked and accurately placed on
      > the Y tree. I maintain a separate SNP tree for haplogroup J that includes
      > private SNPs within haplogroup J. There are some people within ISOGG who
      > don't want the ISOGG tree to be "cluttered" with a lot of private SNPs. I
      > can understand that perspective. One option would be for ISOGG to have a
      > "complete" tree and a "pruned" tree. The "pruned" tree would not include
      > any private SNPs and the "complete" tree would include all known Y SNPs. It
      > would require more work to maintain web pages for a "complete" tree and a
      > "pruned" tree, but it would probably be the best solution in the long run.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > Tim Janzen
    • df.reynolds
      What a perfect summary of the situation!
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        What a perfect summary of the situation!

        --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, Charles Moore <cdmo29@...> wrote:
        >
        > A huge YES to all of that. The idea that the private SNPs clutter up the tree is simply no longer valid. As a result of all the Z SNPs and V SNPs, the tree has become a sort-of affectionate monstrosity, anyway. It is logically impossible to clutter up a monstrosity.
      • Brian P. Swann
        Dear Tim I had just sent a private email to Charles about this - and then opened this message. I would agree completely with your sentiments. These were the
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          Dear Tim

           

          I had just sent a private email to Charles about this – and then opened this message.  I would agree completely with your sentiments.  These were the comments I made:

           

          ---------

           

          I always get a bit concerned about this public / private debate on SNPs.

           

          If I take English surnames in particular – then let’s assume they stabilised in the year range 1300-1400.

           

          What we ideally want is a SNP change occurring in about 1300-1400 – which will be unique to that surname of interest.

           

          Sometimes I think that we get so excited about getting / wanting positive SNP results – that we forget that the object of the exercise is to drive these discrimination SNPs downwards in time from where we are today.

           

          So we are bound to be subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns.

           

          Not sure all folk appreciate this.

           

          And how are these individual SNPs going to be captured for the record for posterity?

           

          Brian

           

           

          From: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com [mailto:R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Janzen
          Sent: 01 July 2012 00:34
          To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: Latest ISOGG R Tree

           

           Dear Mike, Brian, David, Charles, and others,

          The reality is that the ISOGG tree has plenty of “clout”.  The genetic genealogy community is looking to the ISOGG Y tree and Thomas Krahn’s draft tree all of the time for authoritative answers.  These are the de facto standards.  Whether or not the scientific community is publishing articles that follow the ISOGG Y tree is for the most part irrelevant for us.  At this point the YCC has made itself irrelevant by not maintaining an up-to-date Y tree.  As soon as the YCC updates their tree, ISOGG will incorporate anything new from the YCC tree into the ISOGG tree and then within several months the YCC tree will again be out-of-date.  No matter what the scientific community wants to think, the ISOGG tree will continue to be the de facto standard as long as all of us continue to work cooperatively and diligently to maintain the ISOGG tree.  Any reasonable scientist/geneticist who truly knows what is going on is without doubt consulting both the ISOGG Y tree and Thomas Krahn’s draft tree on a regular basis.

          I agree with David Reynolds about the private SNP situation.  Private SNPs are going to become more and more important for genetic genealogists as the Y SNP tree continues to be refined.  It is very important that private SNPs continue to be tracked and accurately placed on the Y tree.  I maintain a separate SNP tree for haplogroup J that includes private SNPs within haplogroup J.  There are some people within ISOGG who don’t want the ISOGG tree to be “cluttered” with a lot of private SNPs.  I can understand that perspective.  One option would be for ISOGG to have a “complete” tree and a “pruned” tree.  The “pruned” tree would not include any private SNPs and the “complete” tree would include all known Y SNPs.  It would require more work to maintain web pages for a “complete” tree and a “pruned” tree, but it would probably be the best solution in the long run.

          Sincerely,

          Tim Janzen 

           

          From: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com [mailto:R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mikewww7
          Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:24 PM
          To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: Latest ISOGG R Tree

           

           
          As far as science goes, it is a benefit to the community as a whole to provide full disclosure. As such, and also for the purposes of individual cross-validation, I recommend seeking services where this is possible. ISOGG may have little clout and is certainly under no obligation to even listen to me, but I would encourage them to support full disclosure from testing companies. It helps the community as a whole and it allows for verification.


          Regards,
          Mike


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.