DF5

[Mikewww]

Shoot. I've been missing a good argument. I guess I'm just happy my kid hit a grand slam last night so I haven't needed to be contrarian yet today.

I can count 40 L21+ people who are 492=13 so it can happen even though less than 1% of L21 appears to be 13. There are even a couple who are 492=14 to go with a pretty good sized group of U152+ Z56+ folks.
...

You know of 40 separate (not relatives) L21+ who have 492=13?

I might have missed one or two, but I counted 10 in the R-L21 Plus Project. That's out of a membership of 1,817, minus the 121 who are either in need of an L21+ result or are awaiting test results. Like I said, I might have missed one or two, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss 30. I'm not doubting your count; I'm just surprised by it.

I know we have two or three with 492=14 and that there is a group within U152 that has 492=14 (and some with 492=13).

It's just that usually 492=13 is a red flag for U106. It's still a good rule of thumb.

I agree with the rule of thumb. When I look for STR off-modal matches for L21's largest clusters (i.e. Scots, Irish II, Irish III, NW Irish, etc.) I literally have a flag that catches 492=13. Typically, a 492=13 person ends up being U106+, but not always.

I went back on where I got the number 40 from. I should have taken more time in coming up with it or at least explaining it. That is from 40 people with 67 length haplotypes that are either L21+ confirmed or are strong matches with a strong L21 cluster. Of those who are confirmed L21+, I've got 20. Below is the list of L21+ confirmed with 492>=13. Including the 14's, there are 26 of those.

My ratio stays about the same, 1% or a little less. Of L21+ confirmed people, I can count 20 at 492=13 out of a (smaller) total of 2232. There are six at 492=14 and there are 28 at 492=11 or less.   492=12 is still the clear modal.

f41871   Davis   R-L21   zzCountry   13   253-1716   WM8X5
f113748   Mavity   R-L21/DF13/L513/L193   Ireland   13   513-1113-A-1-G   P854U
f49846   Heron   R-L21   Ireland   13   zzL21unassigned   ZGFUS
f58674   Fox   R-L21   England   13   9919-A*   NH8X8
f161189   Bain   R-L21/DF13   Scotland   13   1030-A-Sc-24*   VTW6H
fN3983   Allen   R-L21   England   13   1310-A   SV9JY
fN18363   Brown   R-L21   England   14   zzL21unassigned   
f128753   Griffin   R-L21   Ireland   14   1511-A-T2-D   HUZFV
f21340   Grant   R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5   Scotland   13   21-246-1514   522C6
f35963   Pearce   R-L21/DF13/DF41/L744/L745   zzCountry   13   41-744-Stu   D7U3K
fN82517   Pontbriant   R-L21   France   13   zzL21unassigned   7GJ7S
f21401   Grant   R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5   Scotland   13   21-246-1514   4M34M
f122635   Grant   R-L21   zzCountry   13   21-246-1514   JFKZR
f34614   Long   R-L21   zzCountry   14   zzL21unassigned   SYP6K
fN61379   zzzUnk(Smith)   R-L21   England   13   zzL21unassigned   
f174082   Selbie   R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5   Scotland   13   21-246-1514   7D6QQ
f227402   Gilbert   R-L21   Ireland   13   zzL21unassigned   6ZYSG
f151803   Harper   R-L21/DF13   zzCountry   13   zzDF13unassigned   92SY3
f180800   McCroskey   R-L21   Scotland    13   zzL21unassigned   QQSSY
f117910   Taylor   R-L21   zzCountry   13   zzL21unassigned   Q2HPG
fN45540   Peel   R-L21   zzCountry   14   1511-A-T2-D   
f97573   McHargue   R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23/M222   Ireland   13   49-222- unassigned   M7U67
f19591   Donahue   R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23/M222   Ireland   14   49-222-14-B   SBMEH
f21435   Wilcox   R-L21   zzCountry   13   zzL21unassigned   MVT9Q
f26534   Berry   R-L21   zzCountry   13   513- unassigned   K4P43
f55410   Warren   R-L21   England   14   253-1709   2UXJW

Of the others who aren't tested L21, 492=13 seems to pop up a lot in Irish Type II/South guys. I'm pretty sure they are real L21 guys though as Irish II is fairly distinctive

EDIT: to add and explain data

[df.reynolds]

Mike is aware of Selbie and the variety for him will be updated next go round. The Grants are both at Y111 already, and are a distance of 34+ from the Cooper-Reynolds (L627) cluster, and 39+ from the Cain (L658) cluster.  My recommendation is against testing either.
Robert's predictor operates on 67 markers, and the most interesting DF5 markers are only in the Y111 results.

What are you speaking about? From 68 to 111 markers the only value of a slow mutator out of the modal is DYS492=13, but in the first 67, as I have said above, we have

DYS19=15
DYS389I-II=14-30
DYS437=16
DYS464=15-15-18-18
H4=10
DYS438=11

which contribute to form a clade.

DF25+ will have DYS643=9 and match a minimum of two values for DYS717=20, DYS549=11, and DYS504=16. If all three do not match, the third value will be off by a distance of no more than one. In the DF21 project, I have 25 DF25+ (24 are also DF5+), and 17 match all four, with 8 being off by one on one of the latter three markers.

--david

[Maliclavelli]

DF25+ will have DYS643=9 and match a minimum of two values for DYS717=20, DYS549=11, and DYS504=16. If all three do not match, the third value will be off by a distance of no more than one. In the DF21 project, I have 25 DF25+ (24 are also DF5+), and 17 match all four, with 8 being off by one on one of the latter three markers.

I apologize, Mr Reynolds, evidently I did mean the values till 67, in fact DYS492 is within them, then I thought to the difference between 1-37 and 38-67. I have never considered so far the markers from 68 to 111, even because I am waiting my upgrade to 111 for the end of this month: after I’ll study them too. Then my discourse should have been: within the markers from 38 to 67 the unique interesting mutation amongst the slow mutators is DYS492=13 etc.
Anyway, giving a glance to the markers you cited, I am seeing that they have very different mutation rate:
DYS643=0,001648
DYS717=0,000748
DYS549=0,004988
DYS504=0,004614

One is a slow mutator (DYS717).
One is an intermediate one (DYS643).
Two are fast mutators (DYS459 and DYS504).

I think that the ratio of my discourse doesn’t change, because also the markers I considered have this mutation rate:

DYS19=0,001676
DYS389I= 0,002335
DYS437=0,00083
DYS464c=0,004241
DYS464d=0,003716
H4=0,002365
DYS438=0,000494

but DYS492=0,000232

for this I said that the haplotype was characterized by
DYS438=11
DYS492=13

because these are the slowest mutators, and also DYS437 is very important.

It seems to me that the discourse doesn’t change taking in consideration 111 markers rather than 67. For this I had never considered so far to upgrade to 111. But there are there many fast mutators which may serve to define close relatedness, but also the markers between DYS607 and CDYa,b did serve the aim.

[seamasmor]

Thanks to all for information.

I'll upgrade my ysearch when all 67 markers are in . That should be around 6th August according to ftdna.

My only contribution to the discussion at the moment is this, why am I the only one( bar one predicted) to have the marker 12 at number 393?

[Maliclavelli]

My only contribution to the discussion at the moment is this, why am I the only one( bar one predicted) to have the marker 12 at number 393?

You belong to a cluster, for the values I indicated within the 67 markers (at least those already received), but of course you have also other mutations within your family line. One is DYS393=12 (I have this mutation too, but I am R.L23/L150, and this mutation is modal in my haplotype), a mutation very rare, but also rare mutations do happen. Probably your descendants will have this value for thousands of years. But you have also DYS390=25, also rare, DYS385a=12, etc. This demonstrates probably that much time has passed from the ancestor of your cluster and, like my theory says, many other mutations have happened around the modal in fast mutating markers.
But these many mutations beyond your cluster could be due also to the age of some of your ancestors: higher the age, higher the mutation rate.

[Mikewww]

... But these many mutations beyond your cluster could be due also to the age of some of your ancestors: higher the age, higher the mutation rate. 

Why do you say the higher the age, the higher the mutation rate? A rate implies an average per time.

[Maliclavelli]

Why do you say the higher the age, the higher the mutation rate? A rate implies an average per time.

Also here I am basing upon single cases examined: many people with many mutations father-son had a father aged. If this happens, this is a single case, which hasn't anythng to do with "an average per time". That individual will have those mutations and will pass them on his descendants: a clade was born.

History (and Genetics) is a science based upon the particular and not the general.

[Maliclavelli]

By studying History I found that, after the Black Death of the 14th century, many people died and the families were composed (I studied Tuscan documents) by some old man survived, also of 60/70 years old, and young girls of 20 years: they peopled again Tuscany, and then may have happened some birth with the Y with many mutations more than the usual. The DYS455=7 from 11 of Napoleon’s descent may have happened then.
Also my L23 cluster with DYS19=15 and DYS391=10 may be ancient, from a different tradition, but could be due also to a similar birth.