World Families Forums - R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2014, 04:01:02 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!  (Read 32077 times)
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #250 on: October 02, 2012, 08:35:15 AM »

There are five DF41 results this morning, all negative. Hebert, kit 4568, got his DF41 result, and, of course, it is negative. I am disappointed about that.

Don't be too disappointed. It's most unfortunate that the test was negative, but mainly so for Mr. Hebert, as he hasn't found his "home" yet; for you it serves well in determining the size/age of your cluster. Possibly your cluster is much smaller, i.e. more selective, and/or the part your side of the DYS385=11,11 fence is.

The general pattern I see is of SNP-defined clades that consist of much smaller/younger clusters that are unrelated i.e. have completely different defining motifs. It's a very interesting question what phenomenon causes this. Is this because the clusters are a result of selection, e.g. due to migration of certain sub-groups only, or is this a fundamental property of the family tree of mankind. My personal impression is, the latter is just a wee bit more likely.

Many folks who were in the DF41 section of Alex Williamson's last NJ tree have tested DF41-. Apparently it's a tighter and more exclusive subclade than that tree indicated.

I would be a little cautious with the generated trees. If you look at the result sheet of DF41, it is very clear it consists of a number of unrelated tight clusters and a few "outliers" (with all due respect) "under" a much older SNP. This implies that there is no such thing as DF41-ishness, at least not in the 111 markers we currently use (most likely DYS534=14, DYS504=16 just is too weak a motif). If a common pattern does not exist, then no tool (automated or grey-cell) will be able to identify it or its implication (a profile being a DF41 candidate).

The best approach of finding new DF41's will IMHO be to work inside out from the identified cluster patterns, that will find all related cluster members, complemented by an approach to test "random" "starish" L21, to find new clusters and their members.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #251 on: October 02, 2012, 09:07:20 AM »

... The best approach of finding new DF41's will IMHO be to work inside out from the identified cluster patterns, that will find all related cluster members, complemented by an approach to test "random" "starish" L21, to find new clusters and their members.
The first approach is always rational for SNP testing.

The second approach, that I emphasized, is what I call exploratory testing. Not everyone has the inclination or funds for doing this, but we are indebted to the explorers who lead the way. In my opinion, DF41's wide GD range makes open the probability that DF41 is quite old. This is why I've depicted it as a "Bix Six" SNP for DF13 people. I recommend that one person from every major DF13+ cluster test for DF41.  We already know that 1511-T2 (Irish II) and 1030Sc (Scots) are negative but there are many more reasonably firm clusters with DF13+ DF21- L513- DF49- Z253- Z255- that haven't tested for DF41.

I don't know what's in Geno 2.0. I sure hope DF41 and DF49 are in it. If not, they will have a bad stroke of luck timing-wise.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #252 on: October 02, 2012, 10:08:52 AM »

I recommend that one person from every major DF13+ cluster test for DF41.  We already know that 1511-T2 (Irish II) and 1030Sc (Scots) are negative but there are many more reasonably firm clusters with DF13+ DF21- L513- DF49- Z253- Z255- that haven't tested for DF41.

Would it be an idea to publish a summary list of all currently "starish" DF13 clusters with for each the DYS534 and DYS504 of the modal and a short description of  the defining motif ? This would help to follow the testing process.

BTW, same question for DF49 in the topic concerned (no key markers there afaia). $:-)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 10:11:19 AM by Peter M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #253 on: October 02, 2012, 11:03:39 AM »

I recommend that one person from every major DF13+ cluster test for DF41.  We already know that 1511-T2 (Irish II) and 1030Sc (Scots) are negative but there are many more reasonably firm clusters with DF13+ DF21- L513- DF49- Z253- Z255- that haven't tested for DF41.

Would it be an idea to publish a summary list of all currently "starish" DF13 clusters with for each the DYS534 and DYS504 of the modal and a short description of  the defining motif ? This would help to follow the testing process.

BTW, same question for DF49 in the topic concerned (no key markers there afaia). $:-)


Exactly. That's the whole purpose of why I post that big L21 spreadsheet - to facilitate this process. All of the (speculative) varieties (that I know of), their STR signatures, etc., etc. are published with detail. Folks like Alex W use this as the data for network diagramming charts, etc. Robert C uses it as a base for his prediction tool. He, along with others, point out things I'm missing or need correction.

I do a pure off-modal STR and GD calculation "eye test" look at and create speculative varieties. The reason I'm on the L21 plus Yahoo Group is post this data, answer questions and make adjustments.

I'm not doing a good job of looking at 68-111 markers though (they are in the spreadsheet too). Mostly, they just affirmatively support the 1-67 defined varieties, but some are key in some circumstances.

Here are the firm varieties that have at least one DF13* (DF13+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41-) person in them. This means they are all DF41-, so no need for further Big Six exploratory testing within the following.

13-1511A-T2: 565<=11 385b>=15 447<=24 (391=10 439<=11 442=13) {DF13*} [IrishII]
13-1030Sc: 391<=10 449>=30 444>=11 413a<=22 531>=12 GataH4=12 YCAIIb=24or22 {DF13* (L743)} [Scots/STR47]
13-526: 641=11 413a<=22 449>=30 570>=19 641=11 413a<=22 {DF13* L526} [Lurz]
13-1111E: 388=11 439=11 392=14 (459=9,9 442=11) {DF13* L583] [Ashkenazi?]
13-14611: 450=6 393=14 565=11 449=30 (389i=14) {DF13*} [Kenyon,McPherson]
13-1130-A1*: 511=11 449>=30 531=12 385a>=12 19>=15 {DF13*}
13-1130-A1-A: 511=11 449>=30 531=12 385a>=12 19>=15 576=17 464a=14 {DF13*}
13-1114: 520=11 444=11 442>=13 607=14 456=<=15 {DF13*} [Phillips,Lewis]
13-14611: 450=6 393=14 565=11 449=30 (389i=14) {DF13*} [Kenyon,McPherson]
13-1810-W2: 448<=18 391<=10 456<=15 464=15,16,17,17 {DF13* L643} [WalesII/Cadwgon]
13-9926: 459=9,9 447=26 448=18 449=30 456=17 534=13 {DF13*} [Edgecomb]
13-111311: 617>=13 641>=11 406s1>=11 391<=10 {DF13*}
13-2323: 390=25 19=15 439=13 389ii-i=17 458=18 YCAII=23,23 {DF13* L564}
13-101922: 460=10 YCAAIIb=19,22 {DF13*} [Durall]
13-1026: H4=10 447>=26 390>=25 449<=27 {DF13*} [Dowell,McDaniel]
13-1214: 393=12 437=14 448=18 {DF13*}
13-9919-A1: YCAII=19,19 459b=9,9 640=12 & 395s1=16,17 520=22 444=13 481=24 {DF13*} [McCain,Henry]
13-9919-A3: YCAII=19,19 459=9,9 640=12 & 511=11 (617=11) {DF13*}
13-9919-B: YCA11b=19,19 459=9,9 & 531=9 391=10 {DF13*}
13- unnassigned: No cluster found {DF13*}


« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 11:09:40 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #254 on: October 02, 2012, 02:51:15 PM »

Rich, are these DF41 results received in batch 482...not that I am holding out for a positive result, but it would be nice to know one way or the other..

Your result hasn't come in yet.
Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #255 on: October 02, 2012, 04:58:52 PM »

I recommend that one person from every major DF13+ cluster test for DF41.  We already know that 1511-T2 (Irish II) and 1030Sc (Scots) are negative but there are many more reasonably firm clusters with DF13+ DF21- L513- DF49- Z253- Z255- that haven't tested for DF41.

Would it be an idea to publish a summary list of all currently "starish" DF13 clusters with for each the DYS534 and DYS504 of the modal and a short description of  the defining motif ? This would help to follow the testing process.

BTW, same question for DF49 in the topic concerned (no key markers there afaia). $:-)


Exactly. That's the whole purpose of why I post that big L21 spreadsheet - to facilitate this process. All of the (speculative) varieties (that I know of), their STR signatures, etc., etc. are published with detail. Folks like Alex W use this as the data for network diagramming charts, etc. Robert C uses it as a base for his prediction tool. He, along with others, point out things I'm missing or need correction.

I do a pure off-modal STR and GD calculation "eye test" look at and create speculative varieties. The reason I'm on the L21 plus Yahoo Group is post this data, answer questions and make adjustments.

I'm not doing a good job of looking at 68-111 markers though (they are in the spreadsheet too). Mostly, they just affirmatively support the 1-67 defined varieties, but some are key in some circumstances.

Oh, I'm sorry to have asked. I'm well aware of your efforts, but not particularly fond of going through mega-spreadsheets looking for information. Therefore my question for a shorter summary list.

Here are the firm varieties that have at least one DF13* (DF13+ L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41-) person in them. This means they are all DF41-, so no need for further Big Six exploratory testing within the following.

13-1511A-T2: 565<=11 385b>=15 447<=24 (391=10 439<=11 442=13) {DF13*} [IrishII]
13-1030Sc: 391<=10 449>=30 444>=11 413a<=22 531>=12 GataH4=12 YCAIIb=24or22 {DF13* (L743)} [Scots/STR47]
13-526: 641=11 413a<=22 449>=30 570>=19 641=11 413a<=22 {DF13* L526} [Lurz]
13-1111E: 388=11 439=11 392=14 (459=9,9 442=11) {DF13* L583] [Ashkenazi?]
13-14611: 450=6 393=14 565=11 449=30 (389i=14) {DF13*} [Kenyon,McPherson]
13-1130-A1*: 511=11 449>=30 531=12 385a>=12 19>=15 {DF13*}
13-1130-A1-A: 511=11 449>=30 531=12 385a>=12 19>=15 576=17 464a=14 {DF13*}
13-1114: 520=11 444=11 442>=13 607=14 456=<=15 {DF13*} [Phillips,Lewis]
13-14611: 450=6 393=14 565=11 449=30 (389i=14) {DF13*} [Kenyon,McPherson]
13-1810-W2: 448<=18 391<=10 456<=15 464=15,16,17,17 {DF13* L643} [WalesII/Cadwgon]
13-9926: 459=9,9 447=26 448=18 449=30 456=17 534=13 {DF13*} [Edgecomb]
13-111311: 617>=13 641>=11 406s1>=11 391<=10 {DF13*}
13-2323: 390=25 19=15 439=13 389ii-i=17 458=18 YCAII=23,23 {DF13* L564}
13-101922: 460=10 YCAAIIb=19,22 {DF13*} [Durall]
13-1026: H4=10 447>=26 390>=25 449<=27 {DF13*} [Dowell,McDaniel]
13-1214: 393=12 437=14 448=18 {DF13*}
13-9919-A1: YCAII=19,19 459b=9,9 640=12 & 395s1=16,17 520=22 444=13 481=24 {DF13*} [McCain,Henry]
13-9919-A3: YCAII=19,19 459=9,9 640=12 & 511=11 (617=11) {DF13*}
13-9919-B: YCA11b=19,19 459=9,9 & 531=9 391=10 {DF13*}
13- unnassigned: No cluster found {DF13*}


Thanks for the list. Would it be possible to make such a list of all clusters that ARE testing candidates for DF49/DF41 ? I DO hope that would be feasable.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #256 on: October 02, 2012, 05:29:01 PM »

Oh, I'm sorry to have asked. I'm well aware of your efforts, but not particularly fond of going through mega-spreadsheets looking for information. Therefore my question for a shorter summary list.

I guess I shouldn't have emboldened that line. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had a bad question or suggestion.

Sorry for the size of the spreadsheet. It is what it is. This is the negative side of having a lot of data. The positive is having a lot of data which leads to a lot of good analysis.

Thanks for the list. Would it be possible to make such a list of all clusters that ARE testing candidates for DF49/DF41 ? I DO hope that would be feasable.

It's bit of a speculative game to guess what clusters are the best probabilities for a particular SNP so I try to name the clusters independent of SNPs until it becomes clear where they fall.

This is not the answer you want to hear, but my position is that all of the Bix Six SNPs are quite old and have multiple STR signatures. Therefore every DF13+ has to consider testing for each of them. There is no one simple answer to which is the best sequence. It all depends. I can count 75 varieties within L21 that have not tested for DF41. There are several hundred people that I can't assign to any variety that haven't test for DF41.  I'm pretty willing to bet, because of DF41's multiple STR signatures, there will another DF41 variety or two or at least a person or two found in these vast untested groups... maybe the biggest DF41 variety is still waiting out there.

To help on that, in the spreadsheet, I created GD at 67 column and the ability to select a target haplotype to calculate the GD for everyone in the spreadsheet to that person. Then you can sort by the GD column and see a list of what people near you have tested for what GD's, or go further and look at everyone in the associated varieties/clusters.  There are some things that pop up, for example DF23+ (under DF49) people typically have high 481 values. L513 people so far have had high 617 values, etc., etc.

Here are the STR signatures for the varieties that have had at least one DF41+ result:

41- unnassigned: {DF41}
41-1013: 565=13 H4<=10 572<=10 520>=21 439>=14 570>=19 449>=29 {DF41}
41-1426C*: 392=14 447=26 437=16 (534<=14 481<=21 568=10) {DF41} [Bratton]
41-1426C-A: 392=14 447=26 437=16 (534<=14 481<=21 568=10) & 389ii-i=17 {DF41}
41-1411: 594=11 437=14 534=14 {L563}
41-1123: 390=23 385=11,11 447<=24 449<=28 464b=16 534<=14 413a<=22 (458=16 439<=11 ) {DF41} [Stevens]
41-744- unassigned: 565=11 GataH4=10 406s1=11 (446=14 456=15) {L744}
41-744-Stu: 565=11 GataH4=10 406s1=11 (446=14 456=15) {L745} [Stewart]


What other DF13+ types are high probabilities for DF41? I don't know and I don't think anyone can provide high reliability predictions on this. This fellow has made the problem more challenging:
f47694   MacMillan

His closest GD at 67 to anyone else who is DF41+ is GD=16. The highest is GD=28.  See what I mean about DF41 being old? As a comparison the highest GD from MacMillan to anyone in the L21 file is GD=41.

The closest GD of anyone in the L21 file, who has already confirmed DF41-, are these guys of GDs=14 and 15.
fN42297   Issemann   R-L21
f208276   MacKall   R-L21
f79666   Vose   R-L21
f169548   Warthen   R-L21
fN25036   Coody   R-L21
f122895   Dane   R-L21
f169872   Genested   zzL21suspect

There is no great STR signature in the above so I really can't highly recommend they test for DF41, just if they have an exploratory inclination.

In addition, each of the DF41 varieties listed above could probably have its edges explored, other than the Stewart/Stuart folks.

Probably, we should handle DF49 in a separate thread as the information flood just becomes too much.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 05:40:58 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #257 on: October 02, 2012, 07:34:44 PM »

This is not the answer you want to hear, but my position is that all of the Big Six SNPs are quite old and have multiple STR signatures. Therefore every DF13+ has to consider testing for each of them. There is no one simple answer to which is the best sequence. It all depends.

Would you possibly consider adding something like the above to the home page of the Yahoo L21 group?  To my mind, this is the cornerstone of successful R-DF13 testing strategy, and way too many people just don't get it.

--david
Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #258 on: October 02, 2012, 07:36:18 PM »

This is not the answer you want to hear, but my position is that all of the Bix Six SNPs are quite old and have multiple STR signatures. Therefore every DF13+ has to consider testing for each of them.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure about the need for everbody finding himself within R-L21 to test every SNP.

At least for those profiles that are in one of your clusters and those are the profiles I was talking about. Singletons are on their own for the time being, I guess.

Presumably, I wasn't all that clear in the description of my suggestion. I tried to propose to use negative logic: start off with a full list of the names of all DF13 clusters you have identified and then remove every cluster in which there's a profile that (1) has tested DF41- or (2) has tested positive for any of the other SNPs immediately downstream of L21. The result, a list of cluster names with no negative indications with respect to DF41, I would call candidates for speculative (!!) DF41 testing. Is that reasonable and doable ??

Conceptually one could even think of a more general solution in the form of a matrix with all cluster names along the vertical axis and all DF13 SNPs horizontally and then put a "+"-sign in each cell where at least one member of the cluster is positive for a SNP and a "-"-sign if there's at least one negative (and "+/-" if both happen to be the case). The interesting cells would have no sign and still be open for speculative testing of the SNP concerned. I guess publishing such a matrix would easily win you the Nobel Prize for SNP testing.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 09:14:45 PM by Peter M » Logged
Larry Walker
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #259 on: October 02, 2012, 09:39:58 PM »

...

I don't know what's in Geno 2.0. I sure hope DF41 and DF49 are in it. If not, they will have a bad stroke of luck timing-wise.

Check http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RL21Project/message/11873

He says that DF13 and three of the big six (including DF49 & DF41) are NOT in Geno 2.0 }:>((
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #260 on: October 02, 2012, 10:10:12 PM »

Here is what I posted several days before that post.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RL21Project/message/11829

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #261 on: October 02, 2012, 10:16:23 PM »

I will post some of the info

Geno2.0 replaces the existing DeepClade Test offered by FtDNA. There are almost 50 SNPs under L21 now, with around 10 to 12 of the newest discovered SNPs may not be included.
 
Here are the SNPs and dates added to the Draft Ytree which I complied to consider which ones may or may not have been added to the original Geno2.0 system with said 'Nov 2011' Cutoff.
 
L1066 8/10/2012
DF23 8/9/2012
DF63 6/26/2012
DF25 6/25/2012
DF41 6/13/2012
DF13 5/15/2012
Z255 3/9/2012
L908,L909 1/17/2012
L745 12/26/2011
L894,L895 12/5/2011
DF49 11/1/2011
L705,L706 10/24/2011

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Larry Walker
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #262 on: October 02, 2012, 10:52:01 PM »

I will post some of the info

Geno2.0 replaces the existing DeepClade Test offered by FtDNA. There are almost 50 SNPs under L21 now, with around 10 to 12 of the newest discovered SNPs may not be included.
 
Here are the SNPs and dates added to the Draft Ytree which I complied to consider which ones may or may not have been added to the original Geno2.0 system with said 'Nov 2011' Cutoff.
 
L1066 8/10/2012
DF23 8/9/2012
DF63 6/26/2012
DF25 6/25/2012
DF41 6/13/2012
DF13 5/15/2012
Z255 3/9/2012
L908,L909 1/17/2012
L745 12/26/2011
L894,L895 12/5/2011
DF49 11/1/2011
L705,L706 10/24/2011

MJost

Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean to slight you, but Robert did seem a bit more difinitive that the five SNPs that you bolded were OUT, so I assumed that he might have later information.

What would really be nice would be if somebody from GENO 2.0 would confirm just which of the new SNPs in the 2012 ISOGG tree are included, and which are excluded. But that might hurt sales, and we can't have that }:>))
Logged
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #263 on: October 03, 2012, 02:04:00 AM »

No one knows what is included in Geno 2.0 but NatGeo and FTDNA, and they aren't telling.

SNPs for Geno 2.0 came from multiple sources, so just because an SNP was not a part of Thomas' list does not mean it is not in Geno 2.0. The SNP could have been included in the ~3500 from Chris Tyler-Smith, which allegedly were largely from 1000 Genomes data.

Also, the November cutoff for Thomas' data refers to the SNP being known to him (i.e., in his database), not being included in the draft tree, so some of the ones which people think may not have been included, may well have been.

And finally, even if the SNP was known to Thomas, and/or included in Chris Tyler-Smith's list, it may not be included in Geno 2.0, simply because they couldn't get the probe to work for it. Thousands of SNPs that were proposed for inclusion didn't make the final list.

I asked Bennett about this a while back, and bottom-line is that NatGeo is controlling the release of information about what is in Geno 2.0, and they have chosen to not say anything until Spencer Wells' paper is out. And no one seems to have a firm date for that. My suspicion is that the paper will be released when they start shipping the test kits, so hopefully no later than the end of the month.

I sincerely doubt sales enters into the equation at all. Out of the tens-of-thousands of kits that NatGeo expects to sell, the percentage of sales that might be influenced by precisely what Y-SNPs are included has to be vanishingly small.

Regards,
david
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:05:56 AM by df.reynolds » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #264 on: October 03, 2012, 04:49:33 AM »

My understanding like David, is that Spencer's detailed paper will be published before the product is shipped, i.e. end of  this month, so we should not have long to wait. It just might well be that they delay it until after the big Population Genomics conference on 7th November, when a raft of new interesting papers will be released including POBI and Ancestry Painting 2.0.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:06:37 AM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #265 on: October 03, 2012, 05:21:36 AM »

My understanding like David, is that Spencer's detailed paper will be published before the product is shipped, i.e. end of  this month, so we should not have long to wait. It just might well be that they delay it until after the big Population Genomics conference on 7th November, when a raft of new interesting papers will be released including POBI and Ancestry Painting 2.0.
The other factor is FTDNA's conference in Houston, 10-11 Nov. I would imagine Bennett would do his best to ensure that NatGeo releases the info prior to that.
--david
Logged
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #266 on: October 03, 2012, 08:30:17 AM »

@Larry, I wasnt slight by you. I just wished to point out my earlier post that had dates as it got lost in translation.

@DavidR, you are correct as to it is not public yet but a cut off date was defined. No status of any probes failing on any SNPs either.  I cann't even imagine how many other subclades that have new SNPs recently that wont be included either.

I thought that the Houston Nov meeting would be the keynote time to present the details allowed from NAT GEO. One can only hope.

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Mike Forsyth
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #267 on: October 04, 2012, 07:27:22 AM »

I’m starting to feel a little negative...

L21+ DF13+ Z255- Z253- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L226- L193- L159.2- L144- DF49- DF41- DF21-
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #268 on: October 04, 2012, 07:58:33 PM »

I’m starting to feel a little negative...

L21+ DF13+ Z255- Z253- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L226- L193- L159.2- L144- DF49- DF41- DF21-


Yeah, I was sorry to see that, Mike.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #269 on: October 04, 2012, 08:04:17 PM »

Rioux, kit 225950, and Le Guennec, kit N98545, both got DF41- results this morning, and that was disappointing. Both are Bretons.

We have yet to get a DF41+ who isn't Irish or British or of Irish or British y-line descent.

Lately, we haven't been having much luck at all.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #270 on: October 04, 2012, 09:25:12 PM »

Rioux, kit 225950, and Le Guennec, kit N98545, both got DF41- results this morning, and that was disappointing. Both are Bretons. ...

I thought that they were 50/50 chances, at least. Well, this is why we test SNPs. The STRs just don't tell the story well enough.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 09:25:33 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Larry Walker
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #271 on: October 05, 2012, 12:58:50 AM »

We have anxiously been hoping for some French DF41 testers.

It may be nothing, but we may be looking towards the wrong country on the continent. I looked at the extended Y67 matches (up to GD17) for a couple of us and found more and closer Spanish matches than French, though there were not many of either.

Just an idle speculation.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #272 on: October 05, 2012, 03:59:04 AM »

Hebert was my closest non-Isles neighbor. He is French and tested DF41-. I don't really have any Iberian haplotype neighbors, not that I have seen yet, anyway.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 03:59:17 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #273 on: October 06, 2012, 08:59:13 AM »

I contacted FTDNA and inquired about the delay in Self's result. Turns out they had to send him a new sample kit. Aarrgghh!
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #274 on: October 06, 2012, 09:50:31 AM »

Maybe we'll get lucky sometime soon and get a breakout and a new source of DF41 recruits. It's not looking that way right now, however. DF41 is looking somewhat circumscribed and exclusive. I guess that is to be expected when you turn off the big DF13 motorway and onto a quiet country lane.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.166 seconds with 19 queries.