R-DF27/Z196: The Z209 subclade - what do we know about it?

[Mikewww]

Underneath P312 is descendant DF27 and under DF27 is Z196.  A significant component of Z196 appears to be Z209.  Z209 has a high correlation with the North-South Cluster so far.  This is also where the M153+ people sit.  Although multiple subclades of P312 are found among the Basques, M153 is known as the diagnostic "Basque Marker."

What do we know about Z09 and its phylogenetic structure and distribution?

[Mikewww]

This is also where the M153+ people sit.  Although multiple subclades of P312 are found among the Basques, M153 is known as the diagnostic "Basque Marker."

As far as our DNA projects go, here is the info I have

fE8053   Aburruza Gogenola   zzzUnkOrigin
f74765   Baerga   zzzUnkOrigin
f95895   Cordova   Spain
f76019   De Aguirregoitia   Spain, Basque Country, Vizcaya, Erandio
f174994   De Madalan   Spain, Basque Country, Vizcaya, Rigoitia
f88532   Guerra   Spain, Asturias, Llanes
f121879   Huancayo   zzzUnkOrigin
y9CM6V   Jimenez   zzzUnkOrigin
f71688   Mendez-Fortun   Spain, Andalucía, Malaga, Ardales
f113915   Monesterio   Spain (Basque project)
yM7NB5   Ozuna   zzzUnkOrigin
yUGPCK   Padilla   zzzUnkOrigin
f63121   Trujillo   Spain
fE7992   zzzUnkName   zzzUnkOrigin
fN66037   Bravo   Spain, Castilla y León, León
yYFTYV   Cordova   Spain
f209822   Crespin   Spain
f158036   Jimenez   zzzUnkOrigin
f83573   Padilla   Spain
f159918   Quijano Y Jimenez    Spain, Galicia
f85359   Sallaberry   France, Aquitane, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Bidache (Basque project)
f97776   Sallaberry   Spain
fE14422   zzzUnkName   zzzUnkOrigin

I'm not saying this is a broadly representative picture, but based on the haplotypes I have the following STR variance calculations relative to P312. The top couple of numbers are with fewer haplottypes but more STRs, and the bottom are with fewer STRs but more haplotypes.

R-M153______________:  Var=0.22 [Linear 36]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.31 [Mixed 49]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.43 [Linear 16]  (N=19)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.44 [Mixed 24]  (N=19)


So according to these rough calculations, M153 would be anywhere from 20% to 40% of the age of P312.  If you think P312's TMRCA is 10K ybp (which I don't) then you would get M153 ad 2K-4K ybp.  If you think P312 is 4.5K ypb, then you would get M153's TMRCA as 1K-2K ybp.  Let me re-iterate, these are just rough numbers and not necessarily representative of all of M153.

[A_Wode]

F174994 is my closest match at 67 markers in the YSearch database. I turned out to be Z216- to my disappointment. I'm still waiting on Z220...but I will probably be positive.

Do you have 67 markers for any of these others? The other M153+ haplotypes in the Ysearch database seem to only be 37 and are not directly comparable.

[Mikewww]

...  What do we know about Z09 and its phylogenetic structure and distribution?

Below are the Z209+ M153- guys as I have them.  Most people would think of these folks as the R1b North-South cluster.  Very geographically spread....

The two/one digit numbers after the geographic locations are the GDs at 67 from the modal for the group.

f195834   Hulan   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220*   UK   20   z1418*   6UUM5

f90025   Vivies   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   France, Aquitane, Midi-Pyrénées, Haute-Garonne, Pouze   xx   z1418*   5G5W9

fN48992   Wood   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   England   18   z1418*   H2MVW

fN87857   Yriarte   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Spain (Basque project)   8   z1418-BA   

f1401   Chernik   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Ukraine, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Krasilov (Jewish project)   16   z1418-NS*   YHP6P

f193827   Hjelt(Torku)   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Finland, Finland Proper, Turku   14   z1418-NS*   9XE2U

fN92079   Mansilla   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Spain   xx   z1418-NS*   CQYU6

f51074   McElyea   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Ireland   10   z1418-NS*   CDKZW

fN86315   Rose   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220*   England   12   z1418-NS*   23D7G

f109279   Van den Vliet   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220*   Netherlands   12   z1418-NS*   7JDMG

f6324   Van Der Hoeven(Beesd)   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Netherlands, Gelderland, Beesd   7   z1418-NS*   PMUB5

fN38446   Watkins   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Wexford   17   z1418-NS*   7X9ZG

fE6393   Wollenberg   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Germany   xx   z1418-NS*   FB65P

f97920   Zencker   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220*   Czech Republic, Bohemia, Waltersdorf   16   z1418-NS*   EP96D

fE11427   zzzUnkName   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Spain   12   z1418-NS*   

f123539   Bjorkman(Kågeröd)   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   Sweden, Skåne län, Malmöhus, Kågeröd   15   z1418-NS-A   MHH4M

f76755   Björkman(Sjöstorp)   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220   Sweden, Skåne län, Malmöhus, Dalby, Sjöstorp   14   z1418-NS-A   C5QQ7

fN16822   Klaasen   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220   Netherlands, North Brabant, Grave   10   z1418-NS-A   6GZHN

f148469   Parker   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   zzzUnkOrigin   15   z1418-NS-A   XUQ36

f72190   Nuccol   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   England   9   z1418-NS-B   7GE4Q

f99668   Parramore   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   England, South East, Kent, Thanet   13   
z1418-NS-B   Q96DX

f81973   Winter   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220*   England, London (? or Norfolk)   21   z1418-NS-B   KT43P

f27539   Leyton   R-DF27/Z196/Z209/Z220/Z216/Z278*   Ireland, Leinster, Co. Dublin   12   z1418-NS-C   C6EY6

fN50965   Trinquier   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarerach   7   z1418-NS-C   5SCVD

f109430   Larkin   R-DF27/Z196/Z209   England   7   z1418-NS-E   9NXJJ  

Everyone has 437=14 448=18 and most of the non-M153's have H4=10 while a minority of the M153's have H4=10.  On the other hand, a lot of the M153's are 460=10 while a only minority of the non-M153's are 460=10.

I think Z209 is significantly older than M153.
R-Z209+ M153-_______:  Var=0.74 [Linear 36]  (N=22)
R-Z209+ M153-_______:  Var=0.89 [Mixed 49]  (N=22)

Caveat: I'm not claiming this is scientifically representative. This is just FYI.

[JeanL]

I'm not saying this is a broadly representative picture, but based on the haplotypes I have the following STR variance calculations relative to P312. The top couple of numbers are with fewer haplottypes but more STRs, and the bottom are with fewer STRs but more haplotypes.

R-M153______________:  Var=0.22 [Linear 36]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.31 [Mixed 49]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.43 [Linear 16]  (N=19)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.44 [Mixed 24]  (N=19)

Uhm, I find it interesting that the variance decreases as the number of markers increases. Also Mike, why are my calculations of variance of 37 markers for paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) from the ht35 project useless because the sample sizes are 15(For Europe) and 7(For West Asia) respectively, yet yours (n=9 for 36 linear, and 49 mixed) get to be rough calculations? 

Something else that I’m wondering is if when you do relative variance to P312, is the variance of M153 Linear 36 markers relative to the variance of P312 Linear 36 Markers, and Linear 16 Markers relative to the variance of P312 Linear 16 Markers?

[Mikewww]

I'm not saying this is a broadly representative picture.....

R-M153______________:  Var=0.22 [Linear 36]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.31 [Mixed 49]  (N=9)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.43 [Linear 16]  (N=19)
R-M153______________:  Var=0.44 [Mixed 24]  (N=19)

So according to these rough calculations, .... Let me re-iterate, these are just rough numbers and not necessarily representative of all of M153.

Uhm, I find it interesting that the variance decreases as the number of markers increases.

This is anecdoctal to this set of cases.  I don't remember that as a general trend in all of the cases I've done comparing shorter haplotypes.  The key is that there is greater inconsistency when using fewer STRs with U198 being a prime example.

Also Mike, why are my calculations of variance of 37 markers for paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) from the ht35 project useless because the sample sizes are 15(For Europe) and 7(For West Asia) respectively, yet yours (n=9 for 36 linear, and 49 mixed) get to be rough calculations?  

I emphasized my quotes to highlight the intentions.

I'm not sure the M153 results are representative which is why I said that.  That's what I meant by "rough numbers" as well.  I typically would not even display the lesser STR marker results (for 16 and 24 STRs) for reasons discussed in the STR Wars thread. However, I only have 9 haplotypes of 67 STRs and I feel that is too small a number as well.  As another look, I provided the shorter haplotype variance because I had up to about 20 haplotypes. It is what it is. I just provided it for full disclosure as a cross-check. I agree it is not necessarily useful, but I don't think there is much doubt that the TMRCA of the M153 guys in our FTDNA projects is quite a bit younger than the P312 TMRCA.

I don't think a broad paragroup of M269xL23 people is analagous to a specific ethnic group of M153+ people, but if it makes you feel better, I think your M269xL23 calculations are "rough calculations" too. If you wish to discuss more detail, please let's go to the STR Wars thread.

Something else that I’m wondering is if when you do relative variance to P312, is the variance of M153 Linear 36 markers relative to the variance of P312 Linear 36 Markers, and Linear 16 Markers relative to the variance of P312 Linear 16 Markers?  

Yes, everything is consistently treated to the same scale (calculate via the same methods.)

[JeanL]

Is the variance of P312 calculated as the variance of anything that is downstream of P312(i.e. P312+) or is it of the paragroup P312*(i.e. P312(xU152,L21,DF27,etc))?

[razyn]

I don't think any Z209+ person has tested Z220- (most of them just haven't tested Z220 at all, and the rest of us are positive for both).  If Rich Rocca's chart last year was right, and Z220 is down another level, then Z220 should be discussed as the "terminal" N/S Cluster SNP.  However, at the moment, Thos. Krahn's draft tree shows Z209 and Z220 on the same level.  Here is just the DF27 part of it:

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813460

[Mikewww]

Is the variance of P312 calculated as the variance of anything that is downstream of P312(i.e. P312+) or is it of the paragroup P312*(i.e. P312(xU152,L21,DF27,etc))?

It's P312 "all."

Generally, when I refer to a paragroup I'll use the asterisk notation, i.e. P312*, or more explicitly P312xL21xU152xZ196 which would be P312+ L21- U152- Z196-.

As a side note, it does matter, particularly in a case like M222, which is so large compared to DF23+ M222- that it sways the intraclade variance of DF23 "all" to being meaningless or roughly equivalent to M222.  This points out the need for interclade variance types of calculations like what Ken Nordtvedt has developed where separate known groups of related people compared with each other.

[spanjool]

Is DF27 found recently and only/mainly in Iberian samples of the 1000 genomes because it presents itself solely in these samples; or..does the recent finding imply that earlier/other 1000 genome samples will have to be checked again for DF27?
May be can Richard Rocco (or the anonymous researcher who is responsable for already so many DnaForum SNPs) answer this question.

Hans

[Mikewww]

Is DF27 found recently and only/mainly in Iberian samples of the 1000 genomes because it presents itself solely in these samples; or..does the recent finding imply that earlier/other 1000 genome samples will have to be checked again for DF27?
May be can Richard Rocco (or the anonymous researcher who is responsable for already so many DnaForum SNPs) answer this question.

Hans

I don't think the 1000 Human Genome project provided a representative sample so I don't know what to make of the distribution of DF27+ from it.

We are seeing apparent DF27* people from other geographies in our DNA projects so DF27* is not restricted to Iberia by any means.

[Maliclavelli]

I don't think the 1000 Human Genome project provided a representative sample so I don't know what to make of the distribution of DF27+ from it.
We are seeing apparent DF27* people from other geographies in our DNA projects so DF27* is not restricted to Iberia by any means.

Certainly Richard Rocca could respond better than me, but it seems to me he said that Tuscan R-P312-s in 1KGP were DF27+, then no subclade, then the most ancient, seen that it seems that R-P312* hasn't been found so far. This of course is a good sound for my ears.

[Richard Rocca]

Is DF27 found recently and only/mainly in Iberian samples of the 1000 genomes because it presents itself solely in these samples; or..does the recent finding imply that earlier/other 1000 genome samples will have to be checked again for DF27?
May be can Richard Rocco (or the anonymous researcher who is responsable for already so many DnaForum SNPs) answer this question.

Hans

I don't think the 1000 Human Genome project provided a representative sample so I don't know what to make of the distribution of DF27+ from it.

We are seeing apparent DF27* people from other geographies in our DNA projects so DF27* is not restricted to Iberia by any means.

44% of the Iberian 1KG samples were DF27+ and Iberia is by far the largest area of P312* in academic studies. DF27 may not be restricted to Iberia, but it certainly is to Iberia what L21 is to the British Isles. The SW corner of France is probably the next 'layer' of DF27+ frequency.

[Maliclavelli]

44% of the Iberian 1KG samples were DF27+ and Iberia is by far the largest area of P312* in academic studies. DF27 may not be restricted to Iberia, but it certainly is to Iberia what L21 is to the British Isles. The SW corner of France is probably the next 'layer' of DF27+ frequency.

And how many of the Tuscan ones? Probably 100%.

This writes Kaser:
“My DF27 result showed up yesterday; I am DF27+ and Z196-. My paternal line is Swiss (family tradition, census and naturalization records plus I have a 12/12 STR match with a cousin who descends from a different son of my immigrant ancestor). The probable family in Switzerland seems to go back as far as the church records go. Before that - who knows? So if you are looking for non Iberian DF27+, I'm one.
Owen Kaser, N17543”

If he is ySearch J4PTU, amongst values close to the modal, he has also
DYS448=20
DYS462=13
GATAA10=14
DYS635=24

[Maliclavelli]

On SMGF these values, or closer to them, are diffused above all from Italy to Switzerland and Germany beyond a few in South America, of probably Spanish origin. Others are in Mongolia and Asia but probably they belong to another hapogroup. Then I'd be cautious to think that R-P312* was born in Iberia.

[Mikewww]

On SMGF these values, or closer to them, are diffused above all from Italy to Switzerland and Germany beyond a few in South America, of probably Spanish origin........Then I'd be cautious to think that R-P312* was born in Iberia.

I agree with you.  I think SE France, Switzerland, N. Italy and other Alpine regions as well as possibly along the Danube are all candidates, still.  I guess we need to include Anatolia and the Black Sea region.

[Maliclavelli]

“If he is ySearch J4PTU, amongst values close to the modal, he has also
DYS448=20
DYS462=13
GATAA10=14
DYS635=24”

Of course these values are very rare and could be a sign to follow this R-DF27, but someone I have extracted from SMGF are resulted some hg. Q (I have put on ySearch: VWZWS, Montelongo from Mexico) or hg. R2, which have the very rare DYS462=13. But the interesting thing to meditate is just how J4PTU could get these values, i.e. in how much time. Also R-P312/DF27* could be older that it is usually thought.

[Arch Y.]

Everyone has 437=14 448=18 and most of the non-M153's have H4=10 while a minority of the M153's have H4=10.  On the other hand, a lot of the M153's are 460=10 while a only minority of the non-M153's are 460=10.

I think Z209 is significantly older than M153.
R-Z209+ M153-_______:  Var=0.74 [Linear 36]  (N=22)
R-Z209+ M153-_______:  Var=0.89 [Mixed 49]  (N=22)

Caveat: I'm not claiming this is scientifically representative. This is just FYI.

I compared the min, max and modal for SRY2627.

DYS437 Min. = 14
DYS437 Max. = 16
DYS437 Modal = 15

For DYS448 which is of particular interest to me, as myself and one other person are the only SRY2627 people to have this result, which is also rare in other subclades.

DYS448 Min. = 17
DYS448 Max. = 20
DYS448 Modal = 19

DYS460 as follows:

DYS460 Min. = 9
DYS460 Max. = 12
DYS460 Modal = 11.

I thought it was interesting to see DYS460 at 9 and the modal at 11.

It doesn't seem like SRY2627 is too far off from the age estimation of M153?

BTW, H-4 Max = 12 for SRY2627, Min. 10, Modal is 11.

This is starting to look weird. M153 younger than SRY2627?

Arch

[spanjool]

Here is wat Nordtvedt's calculations say about A=M153 and B=SRY2627.


Interclade AB:  &          176   
Interclade MRCA Estimate   GABw   SigmaGABn      
Generations to A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   115   19      
Years bef. pres. A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   3461   4024   2897   
Date of  A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   1461 BC         
            
Clade A:          8   
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GA   SigmaGA      
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   37   7      
Years before present to A MRCA   1098   1318   878   
Best Estimated Date of A MRCA   902 AD         
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GACoal   SigmaGA      
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   30   7      
Years before present To A Coalescence   894   1114   674   
Best Estimated Date of A Coalescence   1106 AD         
            
Clade B:          168   
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GB   SigmaGB      
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   111   10      
Years before present B MRCA   3340   3644   3036   
Best Estimated Date of B MRCA   1340 BC         
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GBCoal   SigmaGB      
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   98   10      
Years before present to B Coalescence   2950   3254   2646   
Best Estimated Date of B Coalescence   950 BC         

The 3.3K of SRY2627 is similar to the age of Z209: also 3.3K.
Z196 is around 3.6K as is L176.2.
I guess that the interclade age mentioned below is pointing to the age of DF17.
Earlier I found that the interclade of Z196 and L176.2 was 3.9K: a nice age for DF27.

Hans

[spanjool]

Underneath P312 is descendant DF27 and under DF27 is Z196.  A significant component of Z196 appears to be Z209.  Z209 has a high correlation with the North-South Cluster so far.  This is also where the M153+ people sit.  Although multiple subclades of P312 are found among the Basques, M153 is known as the diagnostic "Basque Marker."

What do we know about Z09 and its phylogenetic structure and distribution?

Here a network analysis of the Z196xL76.2 samples:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74936451/z196xz176%20mei12%20v3.pdf
The kits aboven median vector 6 are all Z1518 (Mikes spreadsheet) subjects.

And the pair wise mismatch of these samples:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74936451/z196xl176%20pwmm.jpg

And also I like to include a CDF made by Marko:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74936451/67run1Z196clades.pdf

Hans

[Jason Bourgeois]

This is starting to look weird. M153 younger than SRY2627?

Arch

I might be wrong on this, but it seems to me that this very conclusion had been reached quite a while ago by expert members of this type of forum!

[Mikewww]

This is starting to look weird. M153 younger than SRY2627?

I might be wrong on this, but it seems to me that this very conclusion had been reached quite a while ago by expert members of this type of forum!

I'm no expert, but from the long haplotype data available, there is no doubt that R-M153, the so-called Basque marker, is quite young when compared to SRY2627.  M153 is comparable to M222, the young and explosive NW Irish group.  M153 wasn't as explosive in growth but was about the same age, diversity-wise.

The assumption is that you accept that STR diversity increases with age.

Since we are on the topic of comparative ages, according to STR diversity among long haplotypes, ironically, the L165 brothers of SRY2627, which are (L165) supposed to be Nordic, appear to be old like SRY2627.

[Arch Y.]

Here is wat Nordtvedt's calculations say about A=M153 and B=SRY2627.


Interclade AB:  &          176   
Interclade MRCA Estimate   GABw   SigmaGABn      
Generations to A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   115   19      
Years bef. pres. A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   3461   4024   2897   
Date of  A-B Interclade Common Ancestor   1461 BC         
            
Clade A:          8   
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GA   SigmaGA      
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   37   7      
Years before present to A MRCA   1098   1318   878   
Best Estimated Date of A MRCA   902 AD         
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GACoal   SigmaGA      
Generations for A using Intraclade Variance   30   7      
Years before present To A Coalescence   894   1114   674   
Best Estimated Date of A Coalescence   1106 AD         
            
Clade B:          168   
Intraclade MRCA Estimate   GB   SigmaGB      
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   111   10      
Years before present B MRCA   3340   3644   3036   
Best Estimated Date of B MRCA   1340 BC         
Intraclade Coalescence Estimate   GBCoal   SigmaGB      
Generations for B using Intraclade Variance   98   10      
Years before present to B Coalescence   2950   3254   2646   
Best Estimated Date of B Coalescence   950 BC         

The 3.3K of SRY2627 is similar to the age of Z209: also 3.3K.
Z196 is around 3.6K as is L176.2.
I guess that the interclade age mentioned below is pointing to the age of DF17.
Earlier I found that the interclade of Z196 and L176.2 was 3.9K: a nice age for DF27.

Hans

Hans,

Thank you.  Very informative and it really seems to be almost right on target to the Hurles MRCA estimate for SRY2627 done back in 1999.  Dienekes was right about how the authors of the papers produced in 2008/2009 about SRY2627 emerging in the Late Neolithic that they should follow Hurles in his calculations instead.

Arch

[Mikewww]

What do we know about Z09 and its phylogenetic structure and distribution?

I just looked at ISOGG and I see that Z209 and its downstream and peer SNPs are not on the chart.
http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

R1b1a2a1a1b2   Z196
•    R1b1a2a1a1b2*   -
•    R1b1a2a1a1b2a   M153
•    R1b1a2a1a1b2b   L176.2/S179.2
•    •    R1b1a2a1a1b2b*   -
•    •    R1b1a2a1a1b2b1   M167/SRY2627
•    •    R1b1a2a1a1b2b2   L165/S68

Is anyone pursuing getting Z209 and it descendants on the tree properly?  If Z209's status with M153 and L176.2 are validated within FTDNA's testing we should be able to get Z209 added quickly. It can only help your cause to be officially recognized by ISOGG!

Here is FTDNA's draft tree.
http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813059

Root = Approx. hg: R-P312 (ISOGG: R1b1a2a1a1b2) Z196   
. R1b1a2a1a1b5 (ISOGG: R1b1a2a1a1b2b) L176.2
. . R1b1a2a1a1b5a (ISOGG: R1b1a2a1a1b2b1) SRY2627, M167
. . . Approx. hg: R-M167 L276
. . . Approx. hg: R-M167 L628
. . . Approx. hg: R-M167 L659   
. . R1b1a2a1a1b5b (ISOGG: R1b1a2a1a1b2b2) L165
Approx. hg: R-P312 Z209, Z220
. Approx. hg: R-P312 Z278         
. . R1b1a2a1a1b2 (ISOGG: R1b1a2a1a1b2a) M153
. . Approx. hg: R-Z196 L629

I typically get confused looking at Krahn's draft tree so I may not have it right.

I don't see why Z209 is not properly placed yet.  There are Z209- folks downstream of Z196 so it is clearly a Z196 subclade somewhere. L176.2+ folks are Z209- so Z209 is clearly parallel to L176.2. We have an M153+ guy that is Z209+ and we have Z196+ M153- guys that are Z209- so Z209 has a clearly known position.

Is anyone communicating with ISOGG and Thomas Krahn on making sure all of the SNP testing bases are covered and documented as such?

Do we know for sure where L629 fits? We know we have a Z278+ guy who is L629+ ? Do we have any that are L629-?   What's the status of L629 in M153 people?

[razyn]

Is anyone communicating with ISOGG and Thomas Krahn on making sure all of the SNP testing bases are covered and documented as such?

Do we know for sure where L629 fits? We know we have a Z278+ guy who is L629+ ? Do we have any that are L629-?   What's the status of L629 in M153 people?

I think the ISOGG thing is handled by Brian P. Swann and Vince Tilroe, and they are pretty current on the stuff under DF27 that is missing from one or both of the trees you have referenced.  There is an issue Vince has (at least) involving Sanger-testing.  I can't explain it, I just mention it.  Thomas Krahn does his thing, and I think any other people (who have Finch2 access and know what to do with it) need to go through the aforementioned guys to get new results accepted and posted by ISOGG.  This may only apply to new results like these, that lie outside the existing major projects (such as U106, L21, U152).

I can't address the specific L629 questions.