Apparently the old longhand Y-DNA haplogroup nomenclature is going the way of the Dodo. Unfortunately some scientific papers still report haplogroup assignments using the longhand, which forces one to resort to the ISOGG web site to decipher what is meant by it. I much prefer the shorthand, with its macro-haplogroup single-letter designator, followed by a dash and the name of whatever the terminal SNP of the sample is, or whatever terminal SNP is used to represent the block of SNPs at that position.
Of course, that's not perfect either. Sometimes the terminal SNP that is detected is not the one we usually think of but is one of the others in that block, which forces us to look it up in order to figure out what is intended, i.e., what the more commonly known equivalent is. But even that, it seems to me, is preferable to the old longhand.
All that kind of brings me to my point, which is the use of the single-letter macro-haplogroup designator in the shorthand versus a little bit longer version that preserves a bit of the old longhand. For example, R-M343 can also appear as R1b-M343, I-M253 as I1-M253, and so on. For those of us who cut our teeth on the old longhand, back before it became unmanageable, three or two character haplogroup designators preserve the image of old divisions that once seemed of essential importance, like the difference between old "I1a" versus old "I1b" and the difference between old "R1a" versus old "R1b".
I am beginning to wonder if any of the old longhand is worth preserving, since it has largely gone out of use and is almost totally unfamiliar to young people just entering the world of DNA testing. FTDNA doesn't use it anymore. 23andMe doesn't use it. One might still know the difference between the "1a" and "1b" divisions within his own Y-DNA haplogroup, but he is probably going to have to take the time and trouble to look them up when dealing with any other haplogroup. Is it even worth the trouble?
I also wonder if the old longhand could have obscured things that might have otherwise been easier to see without it. Calling one haplogroup "1a" and another one "1b" somewhat obscures their shared ancestry and common origin and perhaps makes them appear to be more separate and different than they really are. Perhaps the simple, single-letter designator is a better reminder of the common root. On the other hand, the old "1a" and "1b" designations can also make subclades that share them appear to be more closely related than they really are. Sometimes subclades that share a "1a" designator aren't closely related at all; the same is true of some subclades that share a "1b" designator. They might not have shared a common ancestor for 15,000 or more years, yet they are both "1a" or "1b".
What do you all think? Which system do you prefer?
Of course, that's not perfect either. Sometimes the terminal SNP that is detected is not the one we usually think of but is one of the others in that block, which forces us to look it up in order to figure out what is intended, i.e., what the more commonly known equivalent is. But even that, it seems to me, is preferable to the old longhand.
All that kind of brings me to my point, which is the use of the single-letter macro-haplogroup designator in the shorthand versus a little bit longer version that preserves a bit of the old longhand. For example, R-M343 can also appear as R1b-M343, I-M253 as I1-M253, and so on. For those of us who cut our teeth on the old longhand, back before it became unmanageable, three or two character haplogroup designators preserve the image of old divisions that once seemed of essential importance, like the difference between old "I1a" versus old "I1b" and the difference between old "R1a" versus old "R1b".
I am beginning to wonder if any of the old longhand is worth preserving, since it has largely gone out of use and is almost totally unfamiliar to young people just entering the world of DNA testing. FTDNA doesn't use it anymore. 23andMe doesn't use it. One might still know the difference between the "1a" and "1b" divisions within his own Y-DNA haplogroup, but he is probably going to have to take the time and trouble to look them up when dealing with any other haplogroup. Is it even worth the trouble?
I also wonder if the old longhand could have obscured things that might have otherwise been easier to see without it. Calling one haplogroup "1a" and another one "1b" somewhat obscures their shared ancestry and common origin and perhaps makes them appear to be more separate and different than they really are. Perhaps the simple, single-letter designator is a better reminder of the common root. On the other hand, the old "1a" and "1b" designations can also make subclades that share them appear to be more closely related than they really are. Sometimes subclades that share a "1a" designator aren't closely related at all; the same is true of some subclades that share a "1b" designator. They might not have shared a common ancestor for 15,000 or more years, yet they are both "1a" or "1b".
What do you all think? Which system do you prefer?
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
- Wisdom of Sirach 44:1
- Wisdom of Sirach 44:1
