View Full Version : ISOGG Y-DNA Nomenclature: Proposal to create new Haplogroup

Wing Genealogist
11-03-2019, 04:15 PM
According to FTDNA's Y-DNA Haplotree https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R Haplogroup R (R-M207) has 11,422 subclades, which makes up 51.4% of the total number of Y-DNA subclades FTDNA has thus far categorized.

To me, it is absurd to have over half of all of the subclades in one haplogroup, while the other 19 (A-Q, S & T) haplogroups make up slightly less than half of all the clades in FTDNA's haplotree.

Even R-L151 (FTDNA's current parent clade of both R-P312 & R-U106) has 9,456 subclades, which is 42.5% off all FTDNA subclades.

Granted, FTDNA's database is heavily skewed towards the British Isles (and to a slightly lesser extent Western Europe) and certainly other haplogroups globally would have more subclades than Haplogroup R.

Even as such, I would argue where it is long overdue for a new Haplogroup be created somewhere in the neighborhood of L151.

To me, this is critically important as the ISOGG clade names keep changing with new branch discoveries. Creating a new Haplogroup would freeze the location of the new clade. and greatly reduce the issue of looking through the various ISOGG trees to determine which tree a scientific study has used.

We are undergoing another revolutionary change in genetic genealogy with the recent ability to test ancient DNA remains. The vast majority of these studies use the ISOGG nomenclature, and the large numbers of folks researching L151 have to spend far too much time trying to determine which version of the ISOGG tree is being used, then look to identify the SNP name for the clade being referred in the paper.

Efforts to get the scientific papers to use clade names, rather than the ISOGG nomenclature by and large has fallen on deaf ears, and I can understand how this nomenclature makes it easy (for the researchers) to examine the relationship between clades.

This won't help with past papers, but we are still very early in the discovery of ancient DNA remains. Certainly many more papers will be published in the years to come, and creating a new anchor point would IMHO be very much appreciated.