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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 21, 2014, 09:56:27 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-DF27/Z196: The Z209 subclade - what do we know about it?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-DF27/Z196: The Z209 subclade - what do we know about it?  (Read 7963 times)
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2012, 05:46:06 PM »

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+.  Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups:  Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+.  I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing.  All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other.  (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.)  For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

Looks like L484 has been found in E, I, R, and T to date. Thomas' db lists this as a recurrent SNP, "Dinucleotide STR mechanism!" The fact that it is not included on his Draft Tree is a good indicator that he thinks it is unstable, as well as the fact that he has not assigned names (i.e., L484.1, L484.2, etc.) to the multiple states.

In general, ISOGG is attempting to avoid adding unstable SNPs; you will likely face an uphill battle should you try to get L484 placed on the ISOGG tree.

Regards,
david

Is there any information about what is going on in cases like this, I've asked several times about the area around L564, which is evidently unstable, but I've yet to receive any sort of explanation.

Logged

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

df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2012, 08:33:01 PM »

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+.  Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups:  Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+.  I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing.  All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other.  (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.)  For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

Looks like L484 has been found in E, I, R, and T to date. Thomas' db lists this as a recurrent SNP, "Dinucleotide STR mechanism!" The fact that it is not included on his Draft Tree is a good indicator that he thinks it is unstable, as well as the fact that he has not assigned names (i.e., L484.1, L484.2, etc.) to the multiple states.

In general, ISOGG is attempting to avoid adding unstable SNPs; you will likely face an uphill battle should you try to get L484 placed on the ISOGG tree.

Regards,
david

Is there any information about what is going on in cases like this, I've asked several times about the area around L564, which is evidently unstable, but I've yet to receive any sort of explanation.



If you look up L564 in ymap.ftdna.com, you'll see that it is in the midst of a very crowded segment, lots SNPs, many of which are recurrent. I believe the theory here is that this segment ("47z") is subject to recombination with the X Chromosome. If you google on L319 or L342, which are nearby, you may be able to find some discussion on this.

L484 is a case where one is actually looking at an STR, not an SNP, so one sees multiple "state" changes as the repeat count goes up/down.

--david
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #52 on: July 22, 2012, 02:37:16 AM »

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+.  Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups:  Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+.  I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing.  All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other.  (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.)  For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

Looks like L484 has been found in E, I, R, and T to date. Thomas' db lists this as a recurrent SNP, "Dinucleotide STR mechanism!" The fact that it is not included on his Draft Tree is a good indicator that he thinks it is unstable, as well as the fact that he has not assigned names (i.e., L484.1, L484.2, etc.) to the multiple states.

In general, ISOGG is attempting to avoid adding unstable SNPs; you will likely face an uphill battle should you try to get L484 placed on the ISOGG tree.

Regards,
david

Is there any information about what is going on in cases like this, I've asked several times about the area around L564, which is evidently unstable, but I've yet to receive any sort of explanation.



If you look up L564 in ymap.ftdna.com, you'll see that it is in the midst of a very crowded segment, lots SNPs, many of which are recurrent. I believe the theory here is that this segment ("47z") is subject to recombination with the X Chromosome. If you google on L319 or L342, which are nearby, you may be able to find some discussion on this.

L484 is a case where one is actually looking at an STR, not an SNP, so one sees multiple "state" changes as the repeat count goes up/down.

--david

Many thanks David.

I'll have a hunt through google later, but do you have any thoughts on how useful these 'SNPs' may be in more resent genealogy.
Logged

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

df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2012, 03:15:15 AM »

As of last night we have three tested Z220+ guys (Hulan, Hall, Reno), plus Moscia (whose Z220 test is still pending), who are L484+.  Five other Z220+ guys tested L484-; so this SNP will presumably get a decimal (L484.2, or whatever), and will split the Z220 lineage into three distinct groups:  Z220*; Z216+ (with descendants Z278, Z214, M153); and L484.x+.  I'll be curious to see whether this creates nodes that are of any use for interclade TMRCA refinements.

So far, the level of Z220 has not been distinguished from that of Z209, except in 1000 Genomes testing.  All of the guys who have tested positive for one (at FTDNA) have tested positive for the other.  (A number of people have only tested one or the other, not both.)  For the purpose of very recent L484 test recruitment, I've assumed that Z220 is younger than Z209.

Looks like L484 has been found in E, I, R, and T to date. Thomas' db lists this as a recurrent SNP, "Dinucleotide STR mechanism!" The fact that it is not included on his Draft Tree is a good indicator that he thinks it is unstable, as well as the fact that he has not assigned names (i.e., L484.1, L484.2, etc.) to the multiple states.

In general, ISOGG is attempting to avoid adding unstable SNPs; you will likely face an uphill battle should you try to get L484 placed on the ISOGG tree.

Regards,
david

Is there any information about what is going on in cases like this, I've asked several times about the area around L564, which is evidently unstable, but I've yet to receive any sort of explanation.



If you look up L564 in ymap.ftdna.com, you'll see that it is in the midst of a very crowded segment, lots SNPs, many of which are recurrent. I believe the theory here is that this segment ("47z") is subject to recombination with the X Chromosome. If you google on L319 or L342, which are nearby, you may be able to find some discussion on this.

L484 is a case where one is actually looking at an STR, not an SNP, so one sees multiple "state" changes as the repeat count goes up/down.

--david

Many thanks David.

I'll have a hunt through google later, but do you have any thoughts on how useful these 'SNPs' may be in more resent genealogy.

No, sorry, I don't have enough info on either to have a valid opinion as to their potential usefulness.

--david
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2012, 06:42:49 PM »

Might as well keep my L484 propaganda where I started it.  Here's a post I made earlier today to the Yahoo R-P312 Project (and list):

Off-modal markers of the L484+ subclade of Z220+

This group was originally identified early in 2011 (by Lawrence Mayka) as a variant of the "1418" N/S cluster, with RecLOH values at DYS 385ab of 10,11 (and with 11 at GATA-H4 -- which turns out to be modal for the N/S cluster, except for the Iberian branch, below Z216). After the respective tests became available, it was determined that the N/S cluster as a whole is positive for DF27, Z196, Z209 and Z220. The additional SNPs Z216, Z278, Z214 and M153 form one downstream sequence; on another sequence that is negative for all of those, the RecLOH values of 10,11 at DYS385 seem confined to those members of the Z220+ population who are positive for L484.

Henry Zenker was kind enough to group together those of us whose haplotypes fit this pattern (group Pabd); and with a number of long haplotypes now available, it is becoming apparent that the L484+ group shares several other values that are off-modal for the bulk of Z209/Z220. Here is a brief summary:

[Edit: At DYS393, all members have 14; haplogroup modal is 13, with three exceptions -- one of whom (Doble) has a mutation to 14 here not shared by his immediate family.]
At DYS392, all members have 14; haplogroup modal is 13. [DYS392 is a slow mutator.]
At DYS447, this subclade is <=23; haplogroup is >=24. [Only exception under Z209 is Rose, not tested for L484.]
At DYS444, the subclade's unanimous 14 is found in only a few other Z220 individuals.
At DYS572, the subclade's unanimous 10 is off-modal, though not quite rare, in the rest of the haplogroup.
At DYS636, the subclade's unanimous 11 is found in only one other example under DF27. [Brickell.]
At DYS445, the subclade has 11, the rest of DF27 prefers 12.
At GATA-A10, the subclade has 12; the bulk of DF27 has 13.
At Y-GGAAT-1B07, the subclade's modal is 8; one member has the haplogroup modal 10. [Small sample, at this testing level.]
At DYS650, the subclade's unanimous 17 is rare elsewhere in DF27.
At DYS643, the subclade's unanimous 11 is found in only two other DF27 haplotypes. [Z220 Nuccol, and DF17 Hart.]

A few of these anomalies may break down, or become less pronounced, as more 111-marker results are posted. But the general pattern is consistent, and it is much deeper than the simple off-modal at DYS385ab that has been so easy to spot (since those values fall within a 12-marker test).
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 09:52:38 AM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2012, 08:16:24 PM »

Bringing this forward since David Reynolds and Mike are online this evening.  I have never heard back from my emails to Thomas Krahn -- but some of you may see him in a couple of weekends, and I want it to be at least in the back of somebody's mind to try to get a discovery sequence for the several instances of L484.  Because I still want my instance of it (the one under Z220+ that is shared by four or more families from Poland, France and England with a MRCA date around 700 AD) placed on the ISOGG tree, and painted into Mike's graphic descendancy chart of DF27.  It doesn't belong on the ISOGG tree until it has a decimal place and a sequence number after that.  I believe it's met all the other criteria.
Logged

R1b Z196*
chris1
Senior Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 66


« Reply #56 on: November 03, 2012, 06:16:51 PM »

Bringing this forward since David Reynolds and Mike are online this evening.  I have never heard back from my emails to Thomas Krahn -- but some of you may see him in a couple of weekends, and I want it to be at least in the back of somebody's mind to try to get a discovery sequence for the several instances of L484.  Because I still want my instance of it (the one under Z220+ that is shared by four or more families from Poland, France and England with a MRCA date around 700 AD) placed on the ISOGG tree, and painted into Mike's graphic descendancy chart of DF27.  It doesn't belong on the ISOGG tree until it has a decimal place and a sequence number after that.  I believe it's met all the other criteria.
Can I ask about the story of L484, will it turn out to be a large group? I see there are seven tested positive so far, represented in the 'Pabd. R-L484 (Subclade of Z220)' section of the FTDNA P312 and Subclades Project. How was the date to MRCA of 700 AD arrived at? Is there any speculation as to the background and place of origin for the MRCA?
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2012, 10:58:32 AM »

Sorry, my Internet connection is cut (tree on neighbor's property knocked it down, and then cars running over it for four days finally broke it).  So my visits to these forums are much less frequent, until Verizon gets to us.  As I recall, only three of us in the Pabd group are actually SNP tested (Hall, Hulan and Reno), but the rest are known kin to a tested person except for the Richert -- who is grouped in there because of all the shared, wacky off-modals with the rest of us.

The MRCA dating for Z220/L484 was done by Hans van Vliet, using a paired mismatch technique of his own.
Logged

R1b Z196*
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2012, 11:11:52 PM »

Bringing this forward since David Reynolds and Mike are online this evening.  I have never heard back from my emails to Thomas Krahn -- but some of you may see him in a couple of weekends, and I want it to be at least in the back of somebody's mind to try to get a discovery sequence for the several instances of L484.  Because I still want my instance of it (the one under Z220+ that is shared by four or more families from Poland, France and England with a MRCA date around 700 AD) placed on the ISOGG tree, and painted into Mike's graphic descendancy chart of DF27.  It doesn't belong on the ISOGG tree until it has a decimal place and a sequence number after that.  I believe it's met all the other criteria.

Speaking only for myself (i.e. not ISOGG), I would say the odds are unlikely you will see any action/discussion on L484 until after the initial dust for Geno 2.0 settles.

FTDNA has hinted there are recurrent markers they will be removing from their tree based on Geno 2.0 data, and if that is indeed the case, they would be unlikely to support adding any additional. We'll see when they publish their new tree.

And while what FTDNA does or doesn't do with their tree is not binding upon ISOGG, ISOGG has tried to avoid arbitrary differences with the FTDNA tree when possible. In any event, the net is that you are unlikely to find any interest in discussing L484 while the Geno 2.0 changes are still up in the air.

Regards,
david

Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2012, 09:47:41 PM »

Speaking only for myself (i.e. not ISOGG), I would say the odds are unlikely you will see any action/discussion on L484 until after the initial dust for Geno 2.0 settles.

Well, you already weren't interested in it July 21 (on this same thread), but I still am, and still disagree with the cavalier dismissal of Z220/L484 while those other wheels grind along (currently, Geno 2.0)... and all the L21 stuff still gets updated weekly, if need be.  I don't think a mutation found in multiple lines since 700 AD is really unstable, it's just non-numerous.  But, whatever.  Geno 2.0 doesn't even know about Z220.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 09:48:32 PM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2012, 07:18:02 PM »

Speaking only for myself (i.e. not ISOGG), I would say the odds are unlikely you will see any action/discussion on L484 until after the initial dust for Geno 2.0 settles.

Well, you already weren't interested in it July 21 (on this same thread), but I still am, and still disagree with the cavalier dismissal of Z220/L484 while those other wheels grind along (currently, Geno 2.0)... and all the L21 stuff still gets updated weekly, if need be.  I don't think a mutation found in multiple lines since 700 AD is really unstable, it's just non-numerous.  But, whatever.  Geno 2.0 doesn't even know about Z220.

We may as well stick to the P312 group over at facebook or where ever we have a majority. As you and I have pointed out numerous times, if it isn't L21 related there's no point in posting about it here. The group may not be as "educated" as some of the people on here, but at least we have an interest in what your talking about.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2012, 01:48:24 PM »

Speaking only for myself (i.e. not ISOGG), I would say the odds are unlikely you will see any action/discussion on L484 until after the initial dust for Geno 2.0 settles.

Well, you already weren't interested in it July 21 (on this same thread), but I still am, and still disagree with the cavalier dismissal of Z220/L484 while those other wheels grind along (currently, Geno 2.0)... and all the L21 stuff still gets updated weekly, if need be.  I don't think a mutation found in multiple lines since 700 AD is really unstable, it's just non-numerous.  But, whatever.  Geno 2.0 doesn't even know about Z220.

We may as well stick to the P312 group over at facebook or where ever we have a majority. As you and I have pointed out numerous times, if it isn't L21 related there's no point in posting about it here. The group may not be as "educated" as some of the people on here, but at least we have an interest in what your talking about.

We could also look at the positive aspects of this "R1b and Subclades" forum.  We have a number of people who care greatly about the whole thing. It's not about timeshare or mind-share, I don't think. We all have time constraints, but its of our own initiative to bring information.

Richard R is a great example of a broader commitment to us, as well as other citizen-scientists on his paper. He is keenly interested in U152 but that didn't stop him from writing papers that have helped document and position lineages outside of U152, including my own. There are others with him on this and I am very grateful to the whole bunch.

David R is another great example. He spends a lot of time on the whole R1b section of the ISOGG tree even though his paternal lineage is of only one type.

I'm very interested in P312 as a whole, including DF27 and U152.  I'm not trying to brag, but I just want you to realize how much time people spend outside their own narrow lineage. I maintain a file of P312*, U152 and DF27 types and keep a simplified graphic of the branching. Look at the data on this site:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-P312-Project/
I'm also working on a major revamp to the R1b and Subclades project to change its function/purpose to help all of the subclades.  If you don't post here, I may miss something important about DF27. (see below)

I don't always comment. Sometimes it is because I've already said everything I have to say on a topic and prefer to wait until I have new information OR someone else comes up with new information. Probably most of this forum wishes I was a little more faithful to that approach. LOL.

Disagreement is okay, but let's look positively on what new information or analysis each of us can bring forward, particularly related to areas we think need more focus.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: DF27
I need help here for a R1b project "Results" web page. I'm trying to help Tibor on this. He wrote this back in January.
Quote from: Tibor
R1b1a2a1a1b (P312 or S116) is the South-Western subgroup of L11, the most common in Western Romance and Celtic-speaking areas. It has several subclades which have clear geographic pattern, the biggest being U152 and L21 (see later below). In its P312* (U152- L21-) form, it is most common in Iberia (35-50%) and France (20-35%), but also occurs frequently in Ireland, England and Switzerland (10-20%). It is less frequent (5-10%) in Northern Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Its small subgroup M153 is only found among Basques, while subgroup L176 consists of a Scandinavian (L165) and a Mediterranean (M167=SRY2627) branch. Its estimated age is similar to that of U106, approx 5500-4000 years BP or 3500-2000 BCE. Diversity points on France as the likely place of origin, and it is usually connected to the spread of Celto-Italic speaking populations. However, it may represent a more ancient folk (related to Basques) who only adopted Celtic languages and culture later.

I'm working on an update to the P312 and DF27 paragraphs to account for DF27. Here's what I've got so far.
Quote from: Mikes draft
R1b-P312 (old R1b1a2a1a1b [S116 is equivalent])
R1b-P312 is the Western subgroup of L11, the most common in Western Romance and Celtic-speaking areas. It has several subclades which have clear geographic pattern, the biggest being U152 and L21 (see later below). In its P312* (U152- L21-) form, it is most common in Iberia (35-50%) and France (20-35%), but also occurs frequently in Ireland, England and Switzerland (10-20%). It is less frequent (5-10%) in Northern Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Its small subgroup M153 is only found among Basques, while subgroup L176.2 consists of a Scandinavian (L165) and a Mediterranean (SRY2627/M167) branch. Its estimated age is similar to that of U106, approximately 5500-4000 years before present (ybp) or 3500-2000 BCE. Diversity points on France as the likely place of origin, and it is usually connected to the spread of Celto-Italic speaking populations. However, it may represent a more ancient folk (related to Basques) who only adopted Celtic languages and culture later.

R1b-DF27 (formerly the majority of the R1b1a2a1a1b* or R1b-P312* paragroup)
R1b-DF27 is a recently discovered subclade of R1b-P312 that has been found to encompass all of R1b-SRY2627 and R1b-M153. These have been considered Iberian Peninsular subclades but they do spread as far north as Scandinavia and as far east as Poland. The old R1b North-South cluster is now also classified under R1b-DF27.

I'm cutting DF27 short here because I'm not sure what to write. Due to space constraints I need to keep DF27's overview to a paragraph but I can get in a couple of additional sentences and fix things. Tibor has to agree with whatever we come up with, but how would you overview DF27 in a paragraph?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 02:00:31 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2012, 02:12:50 PM »


We could also look at the positive aspects of this "R1b and Subclades" forum.  We have a number of people who care greatly about the whole thing. It's not about timeshare or mind-share, I don't think. We all have time constraints, but its of our own initiative to bring information.

Richard R is a great example of a broader commitment to us, as well as other citizen-scientists on his paper. He is keenly interested in U152 but that didn't stop him from writing papers that have helped document and position lineages outside of U152, including my own. There are others with him on this and I am very grateful to the whole bunch.

David R is another great example. He spends a lot of time on the whole R1b section of the ISOGG tree even though his paternal lineage is of only one type.

I'm very interested in P312 as a whole, including DF27 and U152.  I'm not trying to brag, but I just want you to realize how much time people spend outside their own narrow lineage. I maintain a file of P312*, U152 and DF27 types and keep a simplified graphic of the branching. Look at the data on this site:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-P312-Project/

I don't always comment. Sometimes it is because I've already said everything I have to say on a topic and prefer to wait until I have new information OR someone else comes up with new information. Probably most of this forum wishes I was a little more faithful to that approach. LOL.

Disagreement is okay, but let's look positively on what new information or analysis each of us can bring forward, particularly related to areas we think need more focus.

Some of the more downstream markers (i.e. Z209) will only be of interest to those who belong to it, unless the downstream marker has a very strong geographic distribution (i.e. M153). Then there is of course the lack of samples for the newer 'Z' SNPs. I can guarantee that if a study came out tomorrow on DF27 and downstream markers we would find a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, at the moment there isn't much going on.

Naturally L21 is always going to generate a lot of interest in an English speaking forum. It's just a numbers game and nobody should feel slighted by it...I know I don't. And for all the 'discontent', I can tell you that my work on the 1000 Genomes data has not benefited me in the least (still U152+L2*). But, it sure is nice to help others out :)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 02:13:43 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2012, 12:30:27 AM »

Mikewww and Rich Rocca, I wasn't trying to be hateful, just stating what is true of these forums. Whenever Dna-forums died off, all of the L21 guys seem to have migrated here. Thats fine. I was just stating that we kind of have our own little corner on the P312 facebook page. Mostly Z220 guys and couple of SRY2627 here and there. Of course I had a bit of an attitude about it, gotta keep you guys level-headed! Of course the only people who commented are the ones who actually realize there are other branches of P312 besides L21.. Again I'm just kidding, but in a sarcastic way.

I'm very greatful for the both of you. You've both reached far out of your respective haplogroups and have probably done more in some respects for those outside of your groups than you have for those in your groups.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
chris1
Senior Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 66


« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2012, 10:31:46 AM »

I agree that lack of DF27 discussion is probably mainly down to numbers, I don't feel slighted being L21- either. Maybe L21 appears so well represented because such large numbers of L21 emigrated from the west of the British Isles/Ireland to America, where most of the present day genetic genealogist are. Americans obviously have shared culture and language. Many L21 originate in the same relatively local area of north western Europe. There's an immediate rapport, understandably leading to easy communication. The more easterly continental European P312 subclades don't particularly have the numbers yet, or the common language/culture that L21 Americans have. I'm looking forward to new developments within DF27, they'll probably just take longer to turn up. In comparison, DF27 seems a more widespread and continental European leaning subclade of P312.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2012, 10:35:46 AM »

I agree that lack of DF27 discussion is probably mainly down to numbers, I don't feel slighted being L21- either. Maybe L21 appears so well represented because such large numbers of L21 emigrated from the west of the British Isles/Ireland to America, where most of the present day genetic genealogist are. Americans obviously have shared culture and language. Many L21 originate in the same relatively local area of north western Europe. There's an immediate rapport, understandably leading to easy communication. The more easterly continental European P312 subclades don't particularly have the numbers yet, or the common language/culture that L21 Americans have. I'm looking forward to new developments within DF27, they'll probably just take longer to turn up. In comparison, DF27 seems a more widespread and continental European leaning subclade of P312.

It's even more important than that - it may be the most frequent P312 subclade in continental Europe.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2012, 11:50:02 AM »

I agree that lack of DF27 discussion is probably mainly down to numbers, I don't feel slighted being L21- either. Maybe L21 appears so well represented because such large numbers of L21 emigrated from the west of the British Isles/Ireland to America, where most of the present day genetic genealogist are. Americans obviously have shared culture and language. Many L21 originate in the same relatively local area of north western Europe. There's an immediate rapport, understandably leading to easy communication. The more easterly continental European P312 subclades don't particularly have the numbers yet, or the common language/culture that L21 Americans have. I'm looking forward to new developments within DF27, they'll probably just take longer to turn up. In comparison, DF27 seems a more widespread and continental European leaning subclade of P312.

It's even more important than that - it may be the most frequent P312 subclade in continental Europe.

But it's looking even more neglected than usual on Thos. Krahn's Draft Tree.  This morning I just noticed that our Basque colleagues of M153 have fallen right off the tree.  And there are other stems below DF27, currently leading to nowhere.

http://ytree.ftdna.com/

And here was me hoping that L484.x would be visible under Z220, along with (but separate from) Z216.

On the plus side, one may now see the testing data for a SNiP (or "an EssEnPee") by clicking on it.  I didn't know that, before today; had been going through a complicated routine with Gbrowse to find it.  It only works for the SNPs that have been placed on the tree (and haven't fallen back off) -- but one may still find the testing data about many other SNPs, via Gbrowse.

While this has the outward appearance of untidy DF27 housekeeping by Thomas or his lab, I must say that the A00 stuff he's been working on is more important -- and really fascinating.  I was just reading Roberta Estes's blog about that, today.  And I expect the GenoChip is keeping them hopping, too.  Maybe they are waiting for its results to start pouring in, before spending time on this nickel and dime stuff that interests us, individually or collectively.  I haven't seen much to make me think the GenoChip will help sort DF27, but I'm willing to be proven unnecessarily pessimistic.

[Edit:  I haven't time to rewrite this whole message, but David Reynolds has pointed out (elsewhere) that the invisible SNPs at the ends of those truncated stems become visible if one looks at a smaller segment, e.g. in this case just the R tree, rather than the whole thing.  The problem is apparently a failure to communicate, between Firefox and the software in which that Draft Tree lives.]
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 04:26:10 PM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2013, 03:56:22 PM »

I tested positive for Z220 back on December 11th, and tested negative for Z216 on January 19th.  My last name is Webb, which is Old English, however, there was a NPE sometime just before my ancestors came to America or just after.  I match a large number of individuals with the last name Wilder.  My closest Wilder match is a step four at 67 markers, this puts a shared ancestor probability of 90% at 20 generations and around 99% at 24 generations.  The Wilder group I match are claiming a British origin as well.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2013, 04:35:05 PM »

As I recall, only three of us in the [Pabd renamed Jda] group are actually SNP tested (Hall, Hulan and Reno), but the rest are known kin to a tested person except for the Richert -- who is grouped in there because of all the shared, wacky off-modals with the rest of us.

We added another Richert (Rychert) to the group in December, an upgrade from 37 to 111 markers was ordered for his sample #44479, and results for that upgrade are beginning to post today.  [Edit: 67 markers completed, 2/12/13, with one apparent no-call at DYS534.]  So far, Rychert's off-modals are consistent with those of the rest of this subclade; the newly visible ones are at DYS444 and DYS572.  About eight more are expected to be off-modal (from Z220) in the markers from 68 through 111.

Rychert #44479 was also SNP tested for DF27 and L484; no results are yet reported.  When these tests are completed we'll have one representative from each of the four known (or assumed) L484+, N/S cluster families SNP tested, and with 111 marker STR values.

And then I'll pester the ISOGG folks to give our instance of L484 a decimal point and another digit, and hang us on the tree under Z220.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 04:16:36 PM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2013, 06:49:49 PM »

A few days ago we got a result for the first new L484+ tested family since July 21, 2012 -- 44479 Richert.  That haplotype is in process of an upgrade to 111 markers, but only the panels up through 67 markers have posted, to date.  Anyway, I've been revising the list of off-modals for our Z220+, L484+ subclade, which is currently called Group Jda in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/

With a number of long haplotypes now available, it is becoming apparent that our L484+ group shares a substantial number of values that are off-modal for the bulk of Z209/Z220. Here is a more complete analysis of our off-modals, from left to right in the order in which the STR markers are sorted in FTDNA projects:

At DYS393 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 13.
At DYS385a we are 10; modal is 11.
At DYS385b we are 11; modal is 14.
At DYS392 we are 14; modal is 13. [DYS392 is a slow mutator.]
At DYS447 we are ≤ 23; modal is ≥ 24.
At GATAH4 we are 11; Z209/Z220 modal is 10, and we probably have a back mutation from 10 to the higher value that was normal, earlier on our tree.
At DYS444 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 12.
At DYS572 we are 10; modal is 11, though 10 is not quite rare in clades above ours.
At DYS636 we are 11; modal is 12.  [Only one other known example under DF27, Brickell, has 11.]
At DYS445 we are 11; modal is 12.
At GATA-A10 we are 12; modal is 13.
At Y-GGAAT-1B07 our modal is 8; one member has the haplogroup modal 10.
At DYS525 we are ≥ 11; modal is 10.
At DYS650 we are 17; modal is ≥ 18.
At DYS532 we are ≥ 14; modal is 13.  [One member has the modal value.]
At DYS643 we are 11; modal is 10.

This updates, revises slightly, and therefore supersedes what I posted last Aug. 3rd on this thread.

At least 12 more members of these tested families may be found in the various FTDNA surname projects, especially those of Hall (family 006), Blanchard (group 11), and Hulin.  There is one Brown (33668) who may belong with the Halls; and a Dyer (40295) who may represent a fifth L484+ lineage, not yet tested.  There are a few other examples in the SMGF files, and perhaps in other databases to which I have no access.

Application for inclusion of this subclade on the ISOGG tree will proceed in the near future.  We may wait for the 111 marker results for Richert to post, so we can demonstrate the required 15% diversity at the highest level currently possible.  [Edit 3/1/13: the Richert markers 68-111 have begun to post; the first panel has no off-modals, and the fourth confirms DYS650=17.  DYS532 is modal 13 in this sample, and may be removed from our list.  At the moment, I'll just annotate it.]
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 02:13:31 AM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #70 on: February 19, 2013, 01:05:38 PM »

A few days ago we got a result for the first new L484+ tested family since July 21, 2012 -- 44479 Richert.  That haplotype is in process of an upgrade to 111 markers, but only the panels up through 67 markers have posted, to date.  Anyway, I've been revising the list of off-modals for our Z220+, L484+ subclade, which is currently called Group Jda in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/

With a number of long haplotypes now available, it is becoming apparent that our L484+ group shares a substantial number of values that are off-modal for the bulk of Z209/Z220. Here is a more complete analysis of our off-modals, from left to right in the order in which the STR markers are sorted in FTDNA projects:

At DYS393 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 13.
At DYS385a we are 10; modal is 11.
At DYS385b we are 11; modal is 14.
At DYS392 we are 14; modal is 13. [DYS392 is a slow mutator.]
At DYS447 we are ≤ 23; modal is ≥ 24.
At GATAH4 we are 11; Z209/Z220 modal is 10, and we probably have a back mutation from 10 to the higher value that was normal, earlier on our tree.
At DYS444 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 12.
At DYS572 we are 10; modal is 11, though 10 is not quite rare in clades above ours.
At DYS636 we are 11; modal is 12.  [Only one other known example under DF27, Brickell, has 11.]
At DYS445 we are 11; modal is 12.
At GATA-A10 we are 12; modal is 13.
At Y-GGAAT-1B07 our modal is 8; one member has the haplogroup modal 10.
At DYS525 we are ≥ 11; modal is 10.
At DYS650 we are 17; modal is ≥ 18.
At DYS532 we are ≥ 14; modal is 13.
At DYS643 we are 11; modal is 10.

This updates, revises slightly, and therefore supersedes what I posted last Aug. 3rd on this thread.

At least 12 more members of these tested families may be found in the various FTDNA surname projects, especially those of Hall (family 006), Blanchard (group 11), and Hulin.  There is one Brown (33668) who may belong with the Halls; and a Dyer (40295) who may represent a fifth L484+ lineage, not yet tested.  There are a few other examples in the SMGF files, and perhaps in other databases to which I have no access.

Application for inclusion of this subclade on the ISOGG tree will proceed in the near future.  We may wait for the 111 marker results for Richert to post, so we can demonstrate the required 15% diversity at the highest level currently possible.

What was the outcome of Moscia, Ysearch ID#9GZFW?  I notice on semargl they have him as L484+ Z220-.  Is that correct, or a mistake?
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #71 on: February 19, 2013, 02:53:42 PM »

What was the outcome of Moscia, Ysearch ID#9GZFW?  I notice on semargl they have him as L484+ Z220-.  Is that correct, or a mistake?

It's correct, L484 has been found twice under P312.  Also once under I2a (M223+ and P78+).  And in three other haplogroups (so far).  So we need a decimal point and another digit.  Mike W's descendancy chart calls ours "L484NS" because we're in the old North/South cluster.  Moscia is not.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2013, 03:08:14 PM »

What was the outcome of Moscia, Ysearch ID#9GZFW?  I notice on semargl they have him as L484+ Z220-.  Is that correct, or a mistake?

It's correct, L484 has been found twice under P312.  Also once under I2a (M223+ and P78+).  And in three other haplogroups (so far).  So we need a decimal point and another digit.  Mike W's descendancy chart calls ours "L484NS" because we're in the old North/South cluster.  Moscia is not.

Interesting, particularly because I believe he is DF27+.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #73 on: February 21, 2013, 12:44:53 PM »

I was bored so I noticed that there have been several North/South cluster Geno 2.0 results posted at semargl.me.  I copied and pasted into a spreadsheet the results for a Z220 in one column, a Z278 in another, and a Z214 in a third and then did a comparison, looking for snp's that were found in one but not others.  This is what I found.
CTS12074 was found in both the Z278 and Z214 results, but not in the Z220 results.
There are a number of errors, as M269 and M173 were found in the Z214 results but not the other two.  Also P25 was found in the Z220 and Z214 results but not the Z278 results.
But now for the most important snp's, the z's.
These were positive in the Z220 results:  Z148+, Z191+, Z195+, Z196+, Z209+, Z210+, Z215+, Z220+, Z268+, Z274+, Z365+.  Notice the presence of Z215 and Z210, which I believe Rich Rocca has on his chart down below Z220 and clustered around Z216.
These are the snp's that are found in the Z278 results NOT FOUND IN Z220:  Z211+, Z212+, Z216+, Z270+, Z273+, Z278+, and Z295+.
And finally, these are the snp's that are found in the Z214 results NOT FOUND in either Z220 or Z278:  Z214+, Z279+, and Z299+.
The next thing I am going to accomplish is a side by side comparison of multiple Z220 results looking for the same thing.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2013, 01:10:43 PM »

A few days ago we got a result for the first new L484+ tested family since July 21, 2012 -- 44479 Richert.  That haplotype is in process of an upgrade to 111 markers...
I'm refreshing the post instead of simply editing it again.  With the referenced 111-marker upgrade (for a Richert) now posted, it is clear that our subclade shares strong off-modal values at fourteen of the sixteen markers I previously listed.  I am deleting DYS532 and GGAAT1B07 as non-unanimous.  (In both cases at least one member has the Z220 modal value.)  Here is the latest version:

At DYS393 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 13.
At DYS385a we are 10; modal is 11.
At DYS385b we are 11; modal is 14.  The combination at DYS385ab appears to reflect a RECLOH event, also documented at this palindromic marker in other haplogroups.
At DYS392 we are 14; modal is 13. [DYS392 is a slow mutator.]
At DYS447 we are ≤ 23; modal is ≥ 24.
At GATAH4 we are 11; Z209/Z220 modal is 10.  We appear to have a back mutation from 10 to the value (11) that was modal higher on our tree.
At DYS444 we are ≥ 14; Z220 modal is 12.
At DYS572 we are 10; modal is 11. [10 is not unknown in clades above ours.]
At DYS636 we are 11; modal is 12.
At DYS445 we are 11; modal is 12.
At GATA-A10 we are 12; modal is 13.
At DYS525 we are ≥ 11; modal is 10.
At DYS650 we are 17; modal is ≥ 18.
At DYS643 we are 11; modal is 10.

At least one kit (40295 Dyer) that may represent a fifth Z220+, L484+ lineage remains untested for the terminal L484 SNP, and for eight of our off-modals that lie beyond the 37th marker position.

Edited 3/8/2013: wording in first paragraph slightly modified, after results for #44479 to the 111 marker level finished posting last night (except for a no-call at DYS534).  That sample has also tested Z220+ and L484+.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 04:32:13 AM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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 0.143 seconds with 18 queries.