-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Documentation: confusion between pedigree and genetic ancestry? #126
Comments
For example, instead of
could we say
|
Good point, but saying "genetic history" doesn't necessarily connote that we're recording actual genealogical relationships (although not necessarily all of them, as you say). For instance, a new arrival might read "genetic history" to mean that, like, we're recording which of some ancestral populations everyone is descended from. That's why I've gone with "genealogical", as I think its more precise as to what we're actually doing. (And, as written it says it stores "genealogical data", but does not say it stores all the genealogical data.) I'm sure I've not said things in the best possible way, so suggestions welcome! But this one isn't doing it for me... |
It's all tricky stuff! I guess we could also use "inheritance" or something. Or genetic (or "gene") genealogy? Perhaps we should put it in a google doc and then we can both edit it? |
In the intro part of the documentation, lots of the explanation about removing individuals discusses the
pedigreegenealogy. But I usually take the word genealogy to mean the pedigree rather than the genetic ancestry. E.g. if the example were to be simulated in SLiM with a 0 recombination rate, wouldn't a lot more of the nodes be removed?. for this reason, I find find it a bit odd to use the term "genealogical", and the diagram not entirely clear on the distinction.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: