World Families Forums - R-L21: Three new subclades - Big Kahuna, DF13, and DF49, DF63

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 14, 2014, 01:06:26 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: Three new subclades - Big Kahuna, DF13, and DF49, DF63
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-L21: Three new subclades - Big Kahuna, DF13, and DF49, DF63  (Read 9632 times)
David Mc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #125 on: August 23, 2012, 02:12:27 PM »

Hi all,

I'm the McElrea (kit 216031) who tested positive for DF49 and negative for DF23. Am I correct in thinking there's nowhere to go from here, testing-wise?

Also, am I the only person who has tested DF49+ and DF23-? I was trying to find others on the R-L21 Plus list, but didn't manage to find any...

David
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 02:32:50 PM by David Mc » Logged

R-DF49*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #126 on: August 23, 2012, 03:18:45 PM »

Hi all,

I'm the McElrea (kit 216031) who tested positive for DF49 and negative for DF23. Am I correct in thinking there's nowhere to go from here, testing-wise?

Also, am I the only person who has tested DF49+ and DF23-? I was trying to find others on the R-L21 Plus list, but didn't manage to find any...

David

Hi, David.

No, you're not alone in the DF49+ DF23- category. So far, there is one other: Hopkins, kit 33932. On the R-L21 Plus Project's Y-DNA Results pages, you're in category E. DF49+ (L21>DF13>DF49).

I don't see anything new below DF49 on ISOGG's tree, but there may be something on Thomas Krahn's draft tree. I'm having trouble accessing it right now, though.
Logged

David Mc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #127 on: August 23, 2012, 04:02:31 PM »

Thanks, Rich.

It's interesting. Apart from other McElrea men (who will hopefully be joining the R-L21 Plus Group soon) I have no matches above 25 markers on FTDNA.

Within the 25 marker range there are some, like the Templetons, who I had assumed were distantly related to us (an assumption bolstered by comparing our markers on Mike's spreadsheet). The Templetons are DF49-, though. I guess that goes to show you have to be careful not to rely overmuch on STR comparisons...
Logged

R-DF49*
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #128 on: August 23, 2012, 04:10:14 PM »

The Hopkins currently appear to have their own semi-private SNP's. These been specifically L319.1+/L302+. There is at leat one Hopkins who is L319.1+/L302- he's awaiting his DF49 result. Supposedly there is some instability with regards to L319.1.

Other then DF23 these are only known SNP's under DF49. I'm not sure it's worth testing L302 given it appears nearly private -- there are a number of men in their STR cluster who show up L302- for example. (McCabe etc.)
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #129 on: August 23, 2012, 06:13:54 PM »

The Hopkins currently appear to have their own semi-private SNP's. These been specifically L319.1+/L302+. There is at leat one Hopkins who is L319.1+/L302- he's awaiting his DF49 result. Supposedly there is some instability with regards to L319.1.

Other then DF23 these are only known SNP's under DF49. I'm not sure it's worth testing L302 given it appears nearly private -- there are a number of men in their STR cluster who show up L302- for example. (McCabe etc.)

I'm pretty sure that some DF23* or M222 person has tested for L302, if only in a WTY, and been found L302-. I guess we should ask David Reynolds to double check.

Given that, all DF23 people would be L302-.  The only people left who need to test for L302 are the DF49+ L23- people.  As of right now there are only two. We don't really know much about L302. We don't even know how many DF49* people will turn up.

Really, for someone like DF49* McElrea, they might test for L302. That's one of their few possibilities.... IMHO.

Unfortunately, the prior focus has been on L319.1. L319.1 is an option, but David R's feedback is that L319.1 is quite unstable so ISOGG and FTDNA would be unlikely to trust it.

Well, if was me, I'd probably test for both L302 and L319.1, but I'd go in thinking it buying someone a drink or two.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 06:17:59 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 273


« Reply #130 on: August 23, 2012, 06:24:26 PM »

Mike,

I'm confused, I wasn't talking about DF23 given that we know that DF23 is L302- (and L302+ is DF23-), I was mentioning it as an option for David who is DF49+/DF23-

-Paul
(DF41+)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 06:24:49 PM by Dubhthach » Logged
David Mc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #131 on: August 23, 2012, 08:01:01 PM »

Hi Mike and Dubhthach,

Thanks for your guidance. Although I know I'm unlikely to test positive to either, I've put myself down for L302 and L319.1. But then, I didn't expect to test positive for DF49 either, so who knows?

Hopefully we'll see some more people sitting in the DF49* camp soon. It would be interesting to see the geographical spread, although given the spread of M222, which is DF49's grandson, it might not actually tell us much.
Logged

R-DF49*
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #132 on: August 23, 2012, 08:06:58 PM »

Mike,

I'm confused, I wasn't talking about DF23 given that we know that DF23 is L302- (and L302+ is DF23-), I was mentioning it as an option for David who is DF49+/DF23-

I was just trying to say there are only two DF49* that we know of. One is L302+.

L302, because of the DF23+ L302- types, can only be within the scope of DF49*. L302 is not widely tested within DF49*, its only relevant scope.  

We don't know much about L302 within its relevant range. There are some strange things happening with L302 and L319.1, but I'm not sure they are well understood yet as that the families involved have not tested for both across the board. I'm just saying L302, since it is stable (not so for L319.1) needs to be explored a bit more.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 08:08:56 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 273


« Reply #133 on: August 24, 2012, 04:23:12 AM »

Hi Mike and Dubhthach,

Thanks for your guidance. Although I know I'm unlikely to test positive to either, I've put myself down for L302 and L319.1. But then, I didn't expect to test positive for DF49 either, so who knows?

Hopefully we'll see some more people sitting in the DF49* camp soon. It would be interesting to see the geographical spread, although given the spread of M222, which is DF49's grandson, it might not actually tell us much.

David,

That's good to hear, it's through exploratrory testing that we end up with a better picture. I use to be a L21** person, I tested every new SNP that was available under L21 always coming back with negative result. Then I tested DF41 and came back positive. Seen that I was already "in for a penny, in for a pound" I went through process of getting it on ISOGG tree. Which seems to now be bearing fruit given the increasing number of men with different haplotypes getting DF41+ results.

Anyways I see your ancestry is down as been in Tyrone, feel free to join the Ireland Project. (I'm one of the two admins)

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #134 on: August 24, 2012, 04:26:33 AM »

Hopkins (19499) who is L319.1+/L302- came back as DF49+, he has a GD of 8 from 33932 (DF49+/L319.1+/L302+). This strongly implies that L319.1 arose first first in this line before L302. Obviously I know there's some debate regarding the reliability of L319.1, but I think it could be useful diagnostic marker sort of like how L69 is used under L513.

Both Hopkins are members of a larger STR cluster (Hopkins/McCabe), hopefully we sill see more testing for at least DF49 in this group.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #135 on: August 24, 2012, 10:26:04 AM »

Hopkins (19499) who is L319.1+/L302- came back as DF49+, he has a GD of 8 from 33932 (DF49+/L319.1+/L302+). This strongly implies that L319.1 arose first first in this line before L302. Obviously I know there's some debate regarding the reliability of L319.1, but I think it could be useful diagnostic marker sort of like how L69 is used under L513.

Both Hopkins are members of a larger STR cluster (Hopkins/McCabe), hopefully we sill see more testing for at least DF49 in this group.

-Paul
(DF41+)

That's why I'd probably test for both L319.1 and L302 in this situation, but David R has been clear that L319.1 is not a good candidate for a formal Y DNA tree so the big hope is that L302 is more than private, but it may not be. I don't think it has been well tested though among the people who count, DF49* suspects.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
David Mc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #136 on: August 24, 2012, 06:03:28 PM »

Hi Paul,

I've sent a request to join the Ireland yDNA Project, as you've suggested. There's a fair amount of debate as to whether our family is Scottish or Irish in origin. The assumption had always been Scottish, until some (including I, myself) noted the distinctly Irish spelling of our surname. At that point I began to suggest that we are native Irish in origin.

Then I tested my DNA. At 12 markers I became convinced that the family lore was correct and that we were originally Scottish, probably from Argyll or the Hebrides. At 37 markers I began to think the lowlands, perhaps Ayrshire or Galloway. At 67 I have no idea. We have no close matches, outside of our family, and the nearest include Scots, Irish, and Norman names, plus a German and a few French ones-- although some of those matches might be misleading, depending on SNP correlation.

Either way, there's my caveat in re: our assumed Irish-ness.

David
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 06:05:26 PM by David Mc » Logged

R-DF49*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #137 on: August 25, 2012, 12:35:45 AM »

There's a new DF49+ DF23- this morning: Spier, kit 59601.
Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #138 on: August 25, 2012, 12:59:29 AM »

Wilson surname as a MDKA, interesting
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)
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #139 on: August 25, 2012, 07:11:40 AM »

is Wilson considered a Norse surname?
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #140 on: August 25, 2012, 09:12:59 AM »

is Wilson considered a Norse surname?

The Wilson DNA project has a nice overview of the surname lineages that appear after the Norman's came to the UK.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/wilson/

Check out the map below.

In Great Britain : 227 652 people share the surname Wilson according to our estimation
The surname Wilson is the 8th most common name in Great Britain.

http://surname.sofeminine.co.uk/w/surnames/surname-wilson.html

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)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #141 on: August 25, 2012, 10:29:41 AM »

Another new DF49+ DF23- result his morning: Harrison, kit 129036.

It's an expanding club.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #142 on: September 07, 2012, 07:50:15 AM »

Hey!

Jdean is DF49+!

Congrats!
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #143 on: September 07, 2012, 08:14:09 AM »

Hey!

Jdean is DF49+!

Congrats!

Thanks Rich, still grinning like a Cheshire Cat :)

I was predicted positive for this SNP in a network diagram by Alex Williamson, I tend to be a little weary of these but I had Harrison (kit 129036) near to me in one I did last March.

I've got a lot to do now, theories to prove or fail, however connections to the Scots Modal are definitely out the window :)
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #144 on: September 07, 2012, 08:18:15 AM »

Hey!

Jdean is DF49+!

Congrats!

Thanks Rich, still grinning like a Cheshire Cat :)

I was predicted positive for this SNP in a network diagram by Alex Williamson, I tend to be a little weary of these but I had Harrison (kit 129036) near to me in one I did last March.

I've got a lot to do now, theories to prove or fail, however connections to the Scots Modal are definitely out the window :)

This stuff just gets more and more interesting, but the specificity is separating us all from one another. I remember when we were all just just good ol' R1b.
Logged

Albannach
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #145 on: September 07, 2012, 10:24:58 AM »

Hi, I got the deepclade test on ftdna and came back L21+ but tested negative for all the other subclades. I noticed DF13 DF49 DF63 were not included in my deepclade test so I was wondering if someone could give me advice on what to test next, and what it would reveal about my ancestry if I came back positive for any of these subclades.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I think I match the "R1b Pict" as called by Moffatt and Wilson. My ysearch is WSHTD.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #146 on: September 07, 2012, 11:17:18 AM »

Hi, I got the deepclade test on ftdna and came back L21+ but tested negative for all the other subclades. I noticed DF13 DF49 DF63 were not included in my deepclade test so I was wondering if someone could give me advice on what to test next, and what it would reveal about my ancestry if I came back positive for any of these subclades.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I think I match the "R1b Pict" as called by Moffatt and Wilson. My ysearch is WSHTD.

I'd say you're what I refer to as 'Scots Modal', I think Mike calls the cluster 1030-A-Sc-24

That cluster is R-DF13**, so the only SNP you are likely to test positive for is DF13.

However there's a lot of research going on at the moment, including 2 Walk Through the Y and apparently a whole genome, courtesy of Jim Wilson at Scottish DNA.

My advice is sit tight and see what happens.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

David Mc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #147 on: September 07, 2012, 04:34:22 PM »

I posted this on another thread, but as this is where the recommendations came from, I should probably also note the results here. I've come back as L319.1- and L302-, as well as DF23-.

So, out of interest, does this make me DF49* or DF49**? 

Logged

R-DF49*
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 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 0.066 seconds with 19 queries.