World Families Forums - R1b-L21/S145 - keeping the phylogenetic tree updated

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2014, 10:22:20 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)
| | |-+  R1b-L21/S145 - keeping the phylogenetic tree updated
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b-L21/S145 - keeping the phylogenetic tree updated  (Read 3979 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: July 31, 2012, 04:32:06 PM »

I'm just looking for help keeping track of the positioning of new SNPs.

ISOGG is way ahead of FTDNA, which is expected to some extent, on recognizing SNPs that can be placed on the Y DNA phylogenetic tree.
http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Here is Thomas Krahn's draft version of the tree for L21
http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=56121532

Below is a representation of what I use in the R-L21All Haplotype spreadsheet. Do I have it right?  Am I missing SNPs? The below is actually represented in formulas in a spreadsheet so it is important that I get it right to display haplogroup labels correctly. I also try to use the asterisk and double asterisk to help denote immediate downstream SNP results.

L21+  >>> R-L21; * = DF13-  ** = DF13- DF63-

DF13+  >>> R-L21/DF13; * = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255-  ** = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L144- L371- L555-

L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
DF1+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
L193+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L193; Terminal
L706.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L706.2; * = L705.2-
L705.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L706.2/L705.2; Terminal
L705+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L706.2/L705.2; Terminal
L69.5+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L69.5; * = P66-
P66+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L69.5/P66; Terminal

DF21+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21; * = P314.2- Z246-  ** = P314.2- Z246- L720-
P314.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/P314; * = L362-
L362+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/P314/L362; Terminal
Z246+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246; * = DF25-
DF25+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25; * = DF5-
DF5+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5; * = L627- L658-
L627+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627; * = L626-
L626+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627/L626; * = L625-
L625+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627/L626/L625; Terminal
L658+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L658; Terminal
L720+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/L720; Terminal
S190+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/S190; Terminal

DF49+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49; * = DF23-
DF23+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23; * = M222-
M222+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23/M222; Terminal

Z253+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253; * = L226-  ** = L226- L554- L895-
L226+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L226; Terminal
L554+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L554; Terminal
L895+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L895; Terminal

Z255+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z255; * = L159.2-
L159.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z255/L159; Terminal

DF41+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41; * = L744-
L744+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41/L744; * = L745-
L745+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41/L744/L745; Terminal

L144+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L144; Terminal

L371+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L371; Terminal

L555+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L555; Terminal

L743+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L743; Terminal

L96+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L96; Terminal

DF63+  >>> R-L21/DF63; Terminal

L69+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L159.?+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
M37+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
Z245+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L459+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L130+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L152+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L195+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L319.1+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L302+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L526+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L557+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L561+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L563+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L564+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L580+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L583+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L643+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L679+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L9+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L10+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L577+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L908+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L909+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
Z248+ >>> Unpositioned under DF25
L641+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
L642+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
S424+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
S426+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
L894+ >>> Unpositioned under Z253
DF73+ >>> Unpositioned under Z253
L1066+ >>> Unpositioned under Z253
L746+ >>> Unpositioned under DF41

I don't think you are L21* unless you are DF13-. Probably should be DF63- as well although testing for that has just started.

DF13*, I think, should require negative results for all of the Big Five, DF21, Z253, L513, Z255, DF49.  Probably we should add DF41. DF13** is a real feather for one's cap. Any other opinions on what SNPs should be required for asterisks and double asterisks?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 04:32:50 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2012, 07:37:38 PM »


L130+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L152+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L195+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L319.1+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L302+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L526+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L557+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L561+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L563+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L564+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L580+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L583+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L643+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L679+ >>> Unpositioned under L21


Mike, as far as I know, all the above are under DF13, based on either SNP results pages or Thomas' Draft tree.

I am only aware of two private SNPs where the DF13 status is absolutely not known. M37 (positive control sample exhausted) and L192.1. I asked Thomas about L192.1, and he indicated that contrary to some contradictory information floating around, there is exactly one known exemplar in the FTDNA db. He said he would take a look and see if there was anymore information he could provide.

Regards,
david
Logged
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2012, 11:33:45 PM »

|| L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
||  DF1+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
I would argue against including L9 and L10; they have been around forever, tons of tests, but only one derived exemplar. (Sorry, Thomas' server is down so I can't look up the exact stats.)

|| L21+  >>> R-L21; * = DF13-  ** = DF13- DF63-
|| I don't think you are L21* unless you are DF13-. Probably should be DF63- as well although testing for that has just started.
I would agree with that. With only two relevant SNPs under L21, it is not a big burden to expect people to test both.

|| DF13+  >>> R-L21/DF13; * = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255-  ** = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L144- L371- L555-
|| DF13*, I think, should require negative results for all of the Big Five, DF21, Z253, L513, Z255, DF49.
|| Probably we should add DF41. DF13** is a real feather for one's cap. Any other opinions on what SNPs
|| should be required for asterisks and double asterisks?
I think DF41 should be in the DF13* list. I would also include L96 in the DF13** list; it is rare, but it is on the ISOGG tree.

Regards,
david
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 11:34:14 PM by df.reynolds » Logged
seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2012, 02:17:31 AM »

DF13*, I think, should require negative results for all of the Big Five, DF21, Z253, L513, Z255, DF49.  Probably we should add DF41. DF13** is a real feather for one's cap. Any other opinions on what SNPs should be required for asterisks and double asterisks?

I'm DF13+, DF21-, Z253-, L513-, Z255-, DF49-, DF41-, L96- so would then be a DF13** by this definition (and David's additions). Except we know my L583+ is downstream of DF13+ and one would have to presume there is a SNP upstream of L583 and downstream of DF13 as yet undiscovered for all those 1111EE types that are L583-. So, am I still really a DF13** ?? I would even go so far as to say that DYS388=11 is a reasonable stand-in for this yet to be found SNP, since this value is ALWAYS there for 1111EE types (more than 32 that I know about) and almost non-existent everywhere else.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2012, 11:42:47 AM »

|| L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
||  DF1+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
I would argue against including L9 and L10; they have been around forever, tons of tests, but only one derived exemplar. (Sorry, Thomas' server is down so I can't look up the exact stats.)

I'm learning some new words, here. I thought for a moment we were on to the Knights Templar.

As far as L9 and L10, I think I should check our cluster by cluster testing within L513. Are all of are L513+ WTY participants L9- L10-  ?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2012, 12:15:22 PM »

DF13*, I think, should require negative results for all of the Big Five, DF21, Z253, L513, Z255, DF49.  Probably we should add DF41. DF13** is a real feather for one's cap. Any other opinions on what SNPs should be required for asterisks and double asterisks?

I'm DF13+, DF21-, Z253-, L513-, Z255-, DF49-, DF41-, L96- so would then be a DF13** by this definition (and David's additions). Except we know my L583+ is downstream of DF13+ and one would have to presume there is a SNP upstream of L583 and downstream of DF13 as yet undiscovered for all those 1111EE types that are L583-. So, am I still really a DF13** ?? I would even go so far as to say that DYS388=11 is a reasonable stand-in for this yet to be found SNP, since this value is ALWAYS there for 1111EE types (more than 32 that I know about) and almost non-existent everywhere else.

Unfortunately, I don't think using 388=11 is recognized as an adequate stand-in for Y DNA UEP (Unique Event Polymorphism) qualifications. If ISOGG recognizes that then I should probably figure out a way to add it, but they don't. This is partially why I use the concept of "variety" labels to go with haplogroup labels.

From what I can see, L583, has not broken through the private status barrier yet. We probably all have some private SNPs that will not be recognized as significant SNPs on the formal Y DNA trees.  L583, perhaps, could be more widespread and could have GD's of greater than 15%.  It is important to get as many people in the 1111EE variety tested to 67 markers as possible, and then those with the greatest GD spreads need to be tested for L583 so we can prove L583's breadth. Then, from there you can start recruiting for near 1111EE haplotypes and testing them for L583.

Sefer, I encourage you to become an advocate for L583 and push this through the process.  Formal recognition is important. It would be a great day when L583 has its own letter in a haplogroup label and then when checking projects, L583 people start popping out of the woofwork. Of course, its better yet, when the new people find us in our primary haplogroup projects, like L21.

Am I missing 1111EE people in the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet? I must be. What projects should I go look in? Do you have a list of kit #s?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 12:19:51 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2012, 01:01:27 PM »

DF13*, I think, should require negative results for all of the Big Five, DF21, Z253, L513, Z255, DF49.  Probably we should add DF41. DF13** is a real feather for one's cap. Any other opinions on what SNPs should be required for asterisks and double asterisks?

I'm DF13+, DF21-, Z253-, L513-, Z255-, DF49-, DF41-, L96- so would then be a DF13** by this definition (and David's additions). Except we know my L583+ is downstream of DF13+ and one would have to presume there is a SNP upstream of L583 and downstream of DF13 as yet undiscovered for all those 1111EE types that are L583-. So, am I still really a DF13** ?? I would even go so far as to say that DYS388=11 is a reasonable stand-in for this yet to be found SNP, since this value is ALWAYS there for 1111EE types (more than 32 that I know about) and almost non-existent everywhere else.

Unfortunately, I don't think using 388=11 is recognized as an adequate stand-in for Y DNA UEP (Unique Event Polymorphism) qualifications. If ISOGG recognizes that then I should probably figure out a way to add it, but they don't. This is partially why I use the concept of "variety" labels to go with haplogroup labels.

From what I can see, L583, has not broken through the private status barrier yet. We probably all have some private SNPs that will not be recognized as significant SNPs on the formal Y DNA trees.  L583, perhaps, could be more widespread and could have GD's of greater than 15%.  It is important to get as many people in the 1111EE variety tested to 67 markers as possible, and then those with the greatest GD spreads need to be tested for L583 so we can prove L583's breadth. Then, from there you can start recruiting for near 1111EE haplotypes and testing them for L583.

Sefer, I encourage you to become an advocate for L583 and push this through the process.  Formal recognition is important. It would be a great day when L583 has its own letter in a haplogroup label and then when checking projects, L583 people start popping out of the woofwork. Of course, its better yet, when the new people find us in our primary haplogroup projects, like L21.

Am I missing 1111EE people in the Haplotype_Data spreadsheet? I must be. What projects should I go look in? Do you have a list of kit #s?

Don't have kit numbers for a lot of them. They show up as 12 for 12 matches with me in FTDNA and I have to assume they are all 1111EE even at 12 markers because the haplotype is so identifiable. A lot of them don't join projects or even respond to emails, making it difficult to be an advocate for 1111EE or L583. One possibility is that L583 might end up on the Geno 2.0 chip and some people will find out they are L583+ by accident. There are only two other L583+ people in the world besides me, and I recruited both of them to test for L583, so yes, it's possible, but hard to accomplish.

I think there is more promise in finding an 1111EE SNP above L583 that is broader, because I am pretty well convinced that L583 is limited in scope to Ashkenazi Levites. So if you eliminate all the non-Levites (maybe about 95%) from the Ashkenazi testers, then eliminate all the R1a1 Levites (maybe about 50%) from what is left, there is just not much left. Not quite needles in a haystack, but pretty slim pickings for L583, which is why it will likely not ever make it onto an ISOGG or FTDNA tree. I'll think about starting an 1111EE project, and we can see how many of my 32 matches are willing to join. Unfortunately, my guess is not too many.

Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2012, 02:40:25 PM »

|| L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
||  DF1+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
I would argue against including L9 and L10; they have been around forever, tons of tests, but only one derived exemplar. (Sorry, Thomas' server is down so I can't look up the exact stats.)

I'm learning some new words, here. I thought for a moment we were on to the Knights Templar.

As far as L9 and L10, I think I should check our cluster by cluster testing within L513. Are all of are L513+ WTY participants L9- L10-  ?
:)

Mike, the one and only L9+ L10+ result I am aware of is for N56253 (Gilroy); no L9+ or L10+ results in WTY.

--david
Logged
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2012, 05:13:49 PM »

|| L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
||  DF1+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513; * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-
I would argue against including L9 and L10; they have been around forever, tons of tests, but only one derived exemplar. (Sorry, Thomas' server is down so I can't look up the exact stats.)

I'm learning some new words, here. I thought for a moment we were on to the Knights Templar.

As far as L9 and L10, I think I should check our cluster by cluster testing within L513. Are all of are L513+ WTY participants L9- L10-  ?
:)

Mike, the one and only L9+ L10+ result I am aware of is for N56253 (Gilroy); no L9+ or L10+ results in WTY.

--david

Thomas' server is back up and I checked L9 & L10. One derived out of 4478 tests for L9 and one derived out of 4529 tests for L10.

Since they are both on the same segment as P312, they have had a great deal of largely unreported testing.

--david
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2012, 10:45:21 PM »


L130+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L152+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L195+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L319.1+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L302+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L526+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L557+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L561+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L563+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L564+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L580+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L583+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L643+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L679+ >>> Unpositioned under L21


Mike, as far as I know, all the above are under DF13, based on either SNP results pages or Thomas' Draft tree.

I am only aware of two private SNPs where the DF13 status is absolutely not known. M37 (positive control sample exhausted) and L192.1. I asked Thomas about L192.1, and he indicated that contrary to some contradictory information floating around, there is exactly one known exemplar in the FTDNA db. He said he would take a look and see if there was anymore information he could provide.

Regards,
david

Got it. Thanks. Let me know if you find out more about L192.1.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2012, 09:09:47 AM »

Below are the haplogroup label assignments now in the R1b-L21 Haplotypes spreadsheet. I'm a little aggressive by placing L1066. Potential peer subclades under Z253 need to test for L1066, but we do now L895 is downstream of L1066.

The graphic at this link graphically shows the relationships:  https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Descendancy_Tree.jpg

The haplotype file itself is at: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L513_Haplotypes.zip

L21+  >>> R-L21;  * = DF13-  ** = DF13- DF63-,  Equivalents: S145,M529

DF13+  >>> R-L21/DF13;  * = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255-  ** = L513- DF21- DF49- Z253- Z255- DF41- L144- L371- L555- L96-

L513+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513;  * = L193- L706.2-  ** = L193- L706.2- L9- L10- L577- L908- L909- L69-,  Equivalents: DF1,S215
L193+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L193; Terminal,  Equivalents: S176
L706.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L706.2;  * = L705.2-  ** = n/a
L705.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L706.2/L705.2; Terminal
L69.5+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L69.5;  * = P66-  ** = n/a
P66+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L513/L69.5/P66; Terminal,  Equivalents: P66_1,P66_2,P66_3

DF21+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21;  * = P314.2- Z246-  ** = P314.2- Z246- L720-,  Equivalents: S192
P314.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/P314;  * = L362-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S220.2
L362+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/P314/L362; Terminal
Z246+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246;  * = DF25-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S280
DF25+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25;  * = DF5-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S253
DF5+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5;  * = L627- L658-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S191
L627+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627;  * = L626-  ** = n/a
L626+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627/L626;  * = L625-  ** = n/a
L625+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L627/L626/L625; Terminal
L658+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/Z246/DF25/DF5/L658; Terminal
L720+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/L720; Terminal,  Equivalents: S299
S190+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF21/S190; Terminal,  Equivalents: S308,S309,S427

DF49+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49;  * = DF23-  ** = n/a
DF23+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23;  * = M222-  ** = n/a
M222+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF49/DF23/M222; Terminal,  Equivalents: Page84,USP9Y+3636

Z253+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253;  * = L226-  ** = L226- L554- L1066-,  Equivalents: S218
L226+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L226; Terminal,  Equivalents: S168
L554+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L554; Terminal
L1066+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L1066;  * = L895-  ** = n/a
L895+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z253/L1066/L895; Terminal,  Equivalents: L894

Z255+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z255;  * = L159.2-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S219
L159.2+  >>> R-L21/DF13/Z255/L159; Terminal,  Equivalents: S169.2

DF41+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41;  * = L744-  ** = n/a
L744+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41/L744;  * = L745-  ** = n/a,  Equivalents: S388,L746/S310
L745+  >>> R-L21/DF13/DF41/L744/L745; Terminal,  Equivalents: S463

L144+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L144; Terminal,  Equivalents: S175,L195
L371+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L371; Terminal
L555+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L555; Terminal
L96+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L96; Terminal
L743+  >>> R-L21/DF13/L743; Terminal

DF63+  >>> R-L21/DF63; Terminal

L130+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L152+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L192.1+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L195+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L319.1+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L302+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L526+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L557+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L561+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L563+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L564+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L580+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L583+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L643+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L679+ >>> Unpositioned under DF13
L9+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L10+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L577+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L908+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
L909+ >>> Unpositioned under L513
Z248+ >>> Unpositioned under DF25
L641+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
L642+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
S424+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
S426+ >>> Unpositioned under DF21
L894+ >>> Unpositioned under Z253
DF73+ >>> Unpositioned under Z253
L746+ >>> Unpositioned under DF41
L69+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
L159.?+ >>> Unpositioned under L21
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 11:11:24 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2012, 09:54:45 AM »

Wow... such a longway in a short time period.

MJost
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)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2012, 06:14:59 PM »

I've updated the L21 haplotype file and associated descendancy tree. A bunch of L144+ Bracewell's joined the L21 project.  f63671 Jones is now in the file and L459 and Z245 are back in the cloud.
The graphic at this link graphically shows the relationships:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Descendancy_Tree.jpg

The haplotype file itself is at:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L513_Haplotypes.zip
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 06:15:27 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2012, 08:52:11 PM »

I've updated the L21 haplotype file and associated descendancy tree. A bunch of L144+ Bracewell's joined the L21 project.  f63671 Jones is now in the file and L459 and Z245 are back in the cloud.
The graphic at this link graphically shows the relationships:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Descendancy_Tree.jpg

The haplotype file itself is at:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L513_Haplotypes.zip

Yes, I think we must have the whole Bracewell/Braswell/Brazil, etc. clan in the R-L21 Plus Project now. The more, the merrier! I went to high school and played football with a guy named Jim Brazil. I wonder if he is related to all those guys. Probably is. I haven't seen him in years and years.

I hope our newly minted L21+, Jones, will join the project, too.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 08:52:30 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2012, 10:27:09 PM »

I went to high school and played football with a guy named Jim Brazil. I wonder if he is related to all those guys. Probably is. I haven't seen him in years and years.
What position? That helps explain a personality. I was an outisde LB in college. My father a lineman. My kids all played baseball, though. I know some crazy people, including an excellent rugby player over in New Zealand. Some of these guys would have taken up a singular Celtic warrior attack against a Roman legion. Not really a good idea.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2012, 12:09:37 AM »

I went to high school and played football with a guy named Jim Brazil. I wonder if he is related to all those guys. Probably is. I haven't seen him in years and years.
What position? That helps explain a personality. I was an outisde LB in college. My father a lineman. My kids all played baseball, though. I know some crazy people, including an excellent rugby player over in New Zealand. Some of these guys would have taken up a singular Celtic warrior attack against a Roman legion. Not really a good idea.

I played different positions, but mostly defensive end. I enjoyed the look in the quarterback's eyes just before I crashed into him. ;-)
Logged

Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2012, 04:39:08 AM »

If you want a watch field sport with high probability that all 30 men running around field are L21+ (with the odd I2 other haplogroups thrown in) then it's got to be hurling :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmzivRetelE
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2012, 10:20:46 AM »

If you want a watch field sport with high probability that all 30 men running around field are L21+ (with the odd I2 other haplogroups thrown in) then it's got to be hurling :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmzivRetelE


Although the odds of some M222 being on a hurling pitch would be fairly low.
Logged

I-L126
H3
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2012, 10:48:57 AM »

If you want a watch field sport with high probability that all 30 men running around field are L21+ (with the odd I2 other haplogroups thrown in) then it's got to be hurling :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmzivRetelE


Although the odds of some M222 being on a hurling pitch would be fairly low.

Awh now I wouldn't say that sure aren't my fellow Tribesmen in the All Ireland final :-D, even if this year we are in the funny position of been Leinster Champions.
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2012, 11:24:02 AM »

Another thing that crossed my mind before; if you look at the area of Ireland that has won no All Irelands in Hurling, doesn't it go well with where La Tene artefacts have mainly been found?
Anyway, roll on sunday. M222 land (although I wonder if Jim McGuiness is M284) versus Irish type IV (is't that the main one in Cork).
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 11:24:15 AM by inver2b1 » Logged

I-L126
H3
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2012, 12:23:08 PM »

Another thing that crossed my mind before; if you look at the area of Ireland that has won no All Irelands in Hurling, doesn't it go well with where La Tene artefacts have mainly been found?
Anyway, roll on sunday. M222 land (although I wonder if Jim McGuiness is M284) versus Irish type IV (is't that the main one in Cork).

Well you have to remember that the "modern" sport of Hurling is based on what is known as "Summer Hurling" during the 18th century, this was default code of sport in the South (Munster, South Leinster), whereas in Ulster/Connacht you would have seen "Winter Hurling" which used sticks quite similiar to Shinty. I can recall learning the word "camánaíocht" for the verb to play hurling, as oppose to more common iománaíocht -- the stick is after all called a Camán (Hurley). The word just to describe the sport thus ben either Camánacht or more common Iomáin

Interesting the actual Scots Gaidhlig for Shinty is: Camanachd

From what I can see RnaG uses word Camánacht specifically to talk about scottish shinty. Thus the "winter hurling" that was more common in the northern half of Ireland was more akin to modern Scottish Shinty, of course Shinty like Hurling went through process of standardisation/codification in the late 19th century, which probably one reason why  diverged further. Anyways it's Kilkenny we'll be playing, given we beat them in Leinster final it should be a cracker.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2012, 03:17:25 PM »

There are plenty of U106 men that are also good at hurling.



If you want a watch field sport with high probability that all 30 men running around field are L21+ (with the odd I2 other haplogroups thrown in) then it's got to be hurling :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmzivRetelE
Logged
glentane
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2012, 04:52:19 PM »

I think the missing leg of the stool is (was) located in the Antrim Glens, which I suppose would be the last bits of gaeltacht in the east of the six counties? There used to be a book about it up online but I can't find it now, photographs and stuff.
I vaguely recall they originally had a quite short clubby thing like a pattle for a caman, which everyone cut to suit themselves from an ash bole, but moved on to the longer hockey-style ones as it became more of a field sport (with rules and everything!), and less an outbreak of public disorder.
The rules favoured the southern version for obvious reasons of demography, previously seem to have been interchangeable with the Scottish game. Which is understandable, as I've met people who say their parents used to come over to do the shopping in Stranraer, rather than slog all the way to Belfast! So a like trip aboard the Vital Spark to Crinan, Oban, Mallaig or Fort William would have been just as routine and quick, I suppose.

http://www.slideshare.net/martinmccarry/the-gaa-in-the-glens-of-antrim
http://feisnangleann.com/fevents.php
http://www.shaneoneills.antrim.gaa.ie/club-executive/committees/history
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=4843.0
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=14715.0
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 04:56:48 PM by glentane » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2012, 08:44:50 PM »

@ Mike, a bunch of S numbered SNPs (I guess from Wilson's lab in Scotland) have lately posted to the ISOGG R tree that are under L21, and are not on your descendancy chart.

See the last Note in the Notes section (way below the tree itself):

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2012, 10:43:30 PM »

@ Mike, a bunch of S numbered SNPs (I guess from Wilson's lab in Scotland) have lately posted to the ISOGG R tree that are under L21, and are not on your descendancy chart.

See the last Note in the Notes section (way below the tree itself):

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Thanks.
Does anyone have FTDNA kit #s or Ysearch IDs for S424+ S190- guys?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: [1] 2 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 0.144 seconds with 19 queries.