About R-L51+ again. To Rich Rocca

[Maliclavelli]

The new haplotree published by Terry on Rootsweb (but who is Terry with all his knowledge of hg. I? Is Ken Nordtvedt who changed his account? And don’t see they his PC as they did with me and banned me again?), rough of course like every haplotree, gets also the percentages of haplogroups for the most important European countries. If you look at it, you can see that R-L51 is about 4% in Italy, but much less in France and negligible elsewhere.

These can be found in this PDF file and here (scroll down for UPDATE10) (from “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog”)

[Richard Rocca]

Sorry, but I do not see a single mention of L51 on that page, nor any country percentages.

[Maliclavelli]

Rich, you should look at this link:

y-Haplogroups I1 and R1b in European Countries, plus Ancient Migrations

[razyn]

The new haplotree published by Terry on Rootsweb (but who is Terry with all his knowledge of hg. I? Is Ken Nordtvedt who changed his account?

Oddly enough there's a post on the RootsWeb Genealogy-DNA-L list today in which Terry (Robb) is disagreeing with Ken Nordtvedt -- who btw was not banned from that list, but took a few weeks off from it during a vacation, and didn't jump back in immediately when he got home in late March.

[Maliclavelli]

Razyn, I am reading this post:

Ken,
The fundamental difference between the "SNP method" and any of the "STR
methods", is that SNP's are effectively unique events, whereas an STR value
can be a mutation from a higher value or a lower value.
So SNP mutations just regularly accumulate on the Y-chromosome in roughly a
constant manner as the generations go by - so counting SNP mutations is
effectively a simple clock.
In contrast, STR values can mutate up or down or stay the same as the
generations go by - so it is a more complicated clock mechanism to
untangle. That affects the uncertainty. Many STR markers are needed to help
extract a timeline for the STR method.
In regards to 18,692 snps, I meant to say "18,692 variable sites". I have
corrected the title in the graphic at the bottom of
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/
Out of the many millions of nucleotides sequenced on each of the 526
Y-chromosomes sampled, only 18,692 nucleotide sites varied. All the other
sites were the same. A bigger sample of people would identify further
variable sites on the Y-chromosome.
Terry

But who is Terry Robb?
Rich, have you found the link?

[Maliclavelli]

I am not able to send you the link.
Go on”Dienekes’Anthropology blog”
Thread: Drawing the human Y chromosome tree with SNPs
These can be found in this PDF file and here
Click here
y-Haplogroup I1 STR "Cluster" Analysis
scroll down
UPDATE1: y-Haplogroups I1 and R1b in European Countries, plus Ancient Migrations
This is the link
y-Haplogroups I1 and R1b in European Countries, plus Ancient Migrations

[Richard Rocca]

Yes, I found the link. However, whoever that Terry is, he seems to be all over the place with his data and not much of it seems to be in any great detail.

Either way, it doesn't matter as I have created an L51 map that I will post shortly. I am sure it ill be very enlightening to all of you here at World Families.

[Maliclavelli]

Of course I thank you in advance for your work.

[Maliclavelli]

I have invited Malagodi, found R-M269+ and L11-, to test L51 (and I am sure he will be so). He is the most variated L51 found so far.

[Maliclavelli]

Ho fatto la richiesta, IGENEA sta testando L51. Appena ho notizie le faccio sapere.
Grazie,
Alfredo [Malagodi]

La ringrazio per questo. Sono sicuro che risulterà L51+, ma naturalmente la verifica è necessaria. Dopo questo SNP non dovrà testarne altri, perché questo è quello finale del suo aplogruppo.
Gioiello [Tognoni]

[Mikewww]

Razyn, I am reading this post:

Ken,
The fundamental difference between the "SNP method" and any of the "STR
methods", is that SNP's are effectively unique events, whereas an STR value
can be a mutation from a higher value or a lower value.
So SNP mutations just regularly accumulate on the Y-chromosome in roughly a
constant manner as the generations go by - so counting SNP mutations is
effectively a simple clock.
In contrast, STR values can mutate up or down or stay the same as the
generations go by - so it is a more complicated clock mechanism to
untangle. That affects the uncertainty. Many STR markers are needed to help
extract a timeline for the STR method.
In regards to 18,692 snps, I meant to say "18,692 variable sites". I have
corrected the title in the graphic at the bottom of
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/
Out of the many millions of nucleotides sequenced on each of the 526
Y-chromosomes sampled, only 18,692 nucleotide sites varied. All the other
sites were the same. A bigger sample of people would identify further
variable sites on the Y-chromosome.
Terry

But who is Terry Robb?
Rich, have you found the link?

Maliclavelli, I'm taking a wait and see attitude on getting granular with counting SNPs along branch lengths.  This is the "novel" approach that Karafet et al used in 2008 to redefine the Y DNA tree.. .the one where they estimated the R1 TMRCA as 18.5k ybp.  www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-all-GR508.pdf
FTDNA's Chief Scientist, Dr. Mike Hammers, was one of the authors.

Vince Vizachero was quite excited about it at the time and counted SNP branch lengths for R-M269 on down.  However, by the time he was finished he expressed some frustration with the method so I think he retracted them (I don't know, some of that disappeared though.)  If I remember right, he felt that the human genome scanning technologies that produced the output were so full of errors the SNP counting couldn't be considered reliable.  One of the comments about the 1000 Human Genome output is that some of the results were not readable.