PDA

View Full Version : I-M170 and the Babylonian confusion of Y-Haplogroup names



losAntonis
12-10-2020, 05:52 PM
41629
A Y-Haplogroup is a group of men, all descended from one man, a “forefather “, in a purely paternal line. We want to give this forefather a name and there are two different ways of doing this, both of which have their pitfalls and can lead to great confusion. The aim of this article is to show the possibilities for naming and the confusion potential.
https://antoniosdnaproject.de/i-m170-and-the-babylonian-confusion-of-y-haplogroup-names/

deadly77
12-10-2020, 10:11 PM
Good article and clearly written.

Dewsloth
12-10-2020, 11:02 PM
I like that graphic :)

RP48
12-11-2020, 12:36 AM
Such a great explanation.

JMcB
12-11-2020, 12:48 AM
I like that graphic :)

I thought the same thing!

Michał
12-11-2020, 09:44 AM
41629

What is the estimated size of modern populations for clades I-CTS10057 and I-M253?

losAntonis
12-12-2020, 02:53 PM
What is the estimated size of modern populations for clades I-CTS10057 and I-M253?

It is very demanding to estimate the size of haplogroups. It is a lot of hand work, so I decided not to do it.
Therefore I just took the Testers from FTDNA, who are verified by SNPs, to get a little feeling how big the groups could be in comparison.
If you are interested deeply in this question, you could try to search all databases like FTDNA, YFull and whatever and try to make sense of it.

Michał
12-13-2020, 03:42 PM
It is very demanding to estimate the size of haplogroups. It is a lot of hand work, so I decided not to do it.
Therefore I just took the Testers from FTDNA, who are verified by SNPs, to get a little feeling how big the groups could be in comparison.
Your scheme suggests that the modern population of I-CTS10057 is nearly twice as large as that of I-Y3120, which would mean I-CTS10057 encompasses about 40-50 mln people and this seems rather unlikely to me.

Your explanation makes perfect sense, but I'm afraid this makes your scheme a bit confusing to all those who don't know it only reflects the proportions among the FTDNA customers and thus is skewed towards people of North-Western European ancestry.

losAntonis
12-14-2020, 08:34 AM
Your explanation makes perfect sense, but I'm afraid this makes your scheme a bit confusing to all those who don't know it only reflects the proportions among the FTDNA customers and thus is skewed towards people of North-Western European ancestry.

Thank you very much for pointing that.
No need to be afraid. It may be a little bit confusing, but I think most of the people who see the scheme will ignore the proportions. Therefore I decided not to put to much effort in it and use the plain numbers of FTDNA testers and mention it in the blog article, the scheme belong to. I think the proportions in between Northwest European haplogroups could fit more or less. Just the Y3120 should be to small, due to the smaller number of testers in South East Europe. Now, CTS10057 is about 1,5xY3120, but correctly Y3120 should have the same size like CST10057 or even bigger.
But, the main reason for the article is the confusion regarding the haplogroup I2a.
Many people use the old long names, which moved from subclades from M423 to subclades of M436. This confuses me a lot, since I am I-L38 and every time I read I2a1b2 somewhere, I am happy to see someone in Southeast Europe with my haplogroup, which is very rare there, but in real someone of CTS10228 just used the old long name. On the other side, when I mention, that I belong to a I2a haplogroup, which is very rare in Greece, people say, that I2a is very common in Greece, without knowing that I2a is not Y3120 only, but the entire I2, just without I-L417. Y3120 is just a part of P37. Surely the biggest one. And P37 is just a part of L460.
P37 and M436 could have more or less the same size, but regardless if Y3120 is half of L460 or just a quarter of Y3120, I like to show, that it is not the whole.

vasil
12-14-2020, 09:06 AM
The long naming scheme at this point is not viable and should in my opinion be abandoned.