World Families Forums - 67-Marker Matches and Zeroing in on the Old Homeland

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 01:14:04 PM
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)
| | |-+  67-Marker Matches and Zeroing in on the Old Homeland
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 67-Marker Matches and Zeroing in on the Old Homeland  (Read 3750 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: March 07, 2013, 09:46:36 PM »

First off, let me say that I cannot get my y-dna/surname paper trail past my 3rd great grandfather, who was born in 1804 in Wheeling, West Virginia (part of Virginia back then). My main genealogical goal is to extend my knowledge of my y-dna line to my immigrant ancestor, to find out who he was and where he came from. I don't seem to be any closer to the first part of my goal - who my immigrant ancestor was - , but I may be zeroing in on where he came from, thanks to the combination of 67-marker matches (let's call them "near neighbors") and SNP testing.

Here's the list of my closest near neighbors, excluding actual known relatives, and the nature of our matches at 67 markers (I am currently the only one of us who has gone out to 111 markers). I could give you Ysearch IDs, but since Ysearch is in a coma right now, there seems little point.

Beddoes 65/67 (Welsh surname, but my match was born in Worcester, England, and his family is from Shropshire)
Stephens 64/67 (MDKA born in Caswell County, NC, in 1789)
Samuel 63/67 (Documented paper trail to Llanafan Fawr, Powys, Wales, 1692)
Stevens 63/67 (MDKA born in Indiana in 1827)
Webb 63/67 (MDKA born in Delaware in 1700)
Price 60/67 (Welsh surname, mdka born in 1734, location unknown; died in North Carolina in 1799)


All of my near neighbors above belong to a haplotype cluster that has solidly and consistently tested DF41+.

Recently Mr. Samuel managed to extend his y-dna paper trail to 1692 and the little rural hamlet of Llanafan Fawr, Powys, Wales. He has travelled to Wales and says there are Stevenses/Stephenses, and Prices, as well as Samuels in Llanafan Fawr. There is also at least one Mayson family there, according to him, with the surname spelled that way, Mayson. One of our 37-marker matches (35/37 for me) has the surname Mayson, but he does not know where his y-dna mdka came from. Mayson has also tested DF41+ and is squarely in our cluster, at least at 37 markers.

Please bear with me; I am trying to get to the point. ;)

Anyway, as some of you may be aware, the Welsh patronymic naming system insured that y-dna first cousins would all have different surnames. Once Welsh surnames became permanent, a single y-dna line could be diffused among a number of different patronymic surnames.

So I am wondering how excited I should get about this. I am becoming convinced that my y-dna immigrant ancestor was probably a Welshman. I would like to believe that perhaps he even came from the area of Llanafan Fawr. But then a couple of days ago I was helping a couple of guys in the R-L21 Plus Project out, looking at their haplotypes and matches and ultimately urging both of them to test for L1335. What struck me was the number of fairly close 67-marker matches these gentlemen had with men with a variety of surnames (most of them obviously Scottish). So, does that mean I am wrong to have much confidence in 67-marker matches? Or does it mean that the Scots own patronymic naming system guaranteed a welter of y-dna confusion like that among the Welsh?

Am I zeroing in on my y-dna Urheimat (within genealogical time, that is), or am I fooling myself?

Right now I am working with Mr. Samuel to try to recruit some folks from Llanafan Fawr to test.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 08:48:19 AM by rms2 » Logged

Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2013, 10:16:03 PM »

First off, let me say that I cannot get my y-dna/surname paper trail past my 3rd great grandfather, who was born in 1804 in Wheeling, West Virginia (part of Virginia back then). My main genealogical goal is to extend my knowledge of my y-dna line to my immigrant ancestor, to find out who he was and where he came from. I don't seem to be any closer to the first part of my goal - who my immigrant ancestor was - , but I may be zeroing in on where he came from, thanks to the combination of 67-marker matches (let's call them "near neighbors") and SNP testing.

Here's the list of my closest near neighbors, excluding actual known relatives, and the nature of our matches at 67 markers (I am currently the only one of us who has gone out to 111 markers). I could give you Ysearch IDs, but since Ysearch is in a coma right now, there seems little point.

Beddoes 65/67 (Welsh surname, but my match was born in Worcester, England, and his family is from Shropshire)
Stephens 64/67 (MDKA born in Caswell County, NC, in 1789)
Samuel 63/67 (Documented paper trail to Llanafan Fawr, Powys, Wales, 1692)
Stevens 63/67 (MDKA born in Indiana in 1827)
Webb 63/67 (MDKA born in New Jersey in 1700)
Price 60/67 (Welsh surname, mdka born in 1734, location unknown; died in North Carolina in 1799)


All of my near neighbors above belong to a haplotype cluster that has solidly and consistently tested DF41+.

Recently Mr. Samuel managed to extend his y-dna paper trail to 1692 and the little rural hamlet of Llanafan Fawr, Powys, Wales. He has travelled to Wales and says there are Stevenses/Stephenses, and Prices, as well as Samuels in Llanafan Fawr. There is also at least one Mayson family there, according to him, with the surname spelled that way, Mayson. One of our 37-markers matches (35/37 for me) has the surname Mayson, but he does not know where his y-dna mdka came from. Mayson has also tested DF41+ and is squarely in our cluster, at least at 37 markers.

Please bear with me; I am trying to get to the point. ;)

Anyway, as some of you may be aware, the Welsh patronymic naming system insured that y-dna first cousins would all have different surnames. Once Welsh surnames became permanent, a single y-dna line could be diffused among a number of different patronymic surnames.

So I am wondering how excited I should get about this. I am becoming convinced that my y-dna immigrant ancestor was probably a Welshman. I would like to believe that perhaps he even came from the area of Llanafan Fawr. But then a couple of days ago I was helping a couple of guys in the R-L21 Plus Project out, looking at their haplotypes and matches and ultimately urging both of them to test for L1335. What struck me was the number of fairly close 67-marker matches these gentlemen had with men with a variety of surnames (most of them obviously Scottish). So, does that mean I am wrong to have much confidence in 67-marker matches? Or does it mean that the Scots own patronymic naming system guaranteed a welter of y-dna confusion like that among the Welsh?

Am I zeroing in on my y-dna Urheimat (within genealogical time, that is), or am I fooling myself?

Right now I am working with Mr. Samuel to try to recruit some folks from Llanafan Fawr to test.

Webb is the only one who would seem to be not Welsh.  It could be a NPE in regards to Webb.  Webb is fairly common in Wiltshire and Warwickshire, which are pretty close to Wales.
Logged

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

Posts: 109


« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2013, 10:33:58 PM »

I would say that your 67 marker matches are valid and may be as close as you are going to get.  I have 8 67 marker matches, all with the last name Wilder.  My closest is at a GD of 4, which by my calculations puts that at around 1500 to 1600.  The admin at the Wilder group is convinced that it is closer to 1710.  Either way, on the chance that there was a wacky mutation, its a clue and because they share the same surname, I at least have something to work with.  In your case, though the surnames are different, I would trust the findings.  All your matches are clues.  If you could figure out where these lineages overlap, you might be able to figure it out.  A wacky mutation might make it he matches seem older than what they really are.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2013, 05:00:37 AM »

Thanks, Webb. Yes, Webb does seem to be the only potentially non-Welsh surname on the list.

I guess time may provide more clues, but it's hard to be patient.
Logged

Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2013, 01:15:13 PM »

Thanks, Webb. Yes, Webb does seem to be the only potentially non-Welsh surname on the list.

I guess time may provide more clues, but it's hard to be patient.

I'm assuming your step 4 matches are around 20 to 24 generations for a common ancestor?
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2013, 08:18:45 PM »

Thanks, Webb. Yes, Webb does seem to be the only potentially non-Welsh surname on the list.

I guess time may provide more clues, but it's hard to be patient.

I'm assuming your step 4 matches are around 20 to 24 generations for a common ancestor?

I'm thinking 17th century, maybe 16th.
Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2013, 10:33:12 PM »

Just for a comparison I will provide my situation. My paternal ancestry is documented 11 generations back to the 16th century and my extremely uncommon surname is from a small town in Spain. I have a 109 marker match with another person who also has the same surname and has documented ancestry 12 generations back to the 16th century to the same town my ancestors were from. Due to a lack of more documentation of the surname we don't know how many generations back it is that we have a common ancestor. Even at 24 generations the probability that our common ancestor lived at that time is only at 99.98%

I hope this helps in some way.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2013, 08:24:26 AM »

Just for a comparison I will provide my situation. My paternal ancestry is documented 11 generations back to the 16th century and my extremely uncommon surname is from a small town in Spain. I have a 109 marker match with another person who also has the same surname and has documented ancestry 12 generations back to the 16th century to the same town my ancestors were from. Due to a lack of more documentation of the surname we don't know how many generations back it is that we have a common ancestor. Even at 24 generations the probability that our common ancestor lived at that time is only at 99.98%

I hope this helps in some way.

Thanks, Armando.

Do you mean your match is 109/111? If so, that's pretty close.

At 67 markers, I use the rough rule of thumb of 100-150 years for every unit of genetic distance. Like I said, it's a rough rule of thumb, not precise. That would put my 63/67 matches at within 400-600 years to the most recent common ancestor, with those numbers the outer bound. In other words, the relationship could be even closer than those numbers suggest.

Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2013, 10:46:28 AM »

Steve,

I do like the FtDNA's TIP calculator at 68%.

Or http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm

My GD's are

67 Markers
3    Cook (England/Scotland family lore, cant go back more than five Gens in Georgia USA)
6    Codere (Watterson-McWalter Isle of Man - been there as far as they have ever known back to 1400 via Key records)
7    Curry  (unkn)
9    Curry2  (unkn)
9    Ross  (Highlands - Scotland MDKA 1760's)

111 Markers
5    Cook
8    Codere
13   Ross

I now have 19 - 67markers Hts in three subclusters. So keep digging.

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)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2013, 08:28:47 PM »

I hadn't fooled with McGee's Utility in a couple of years, but this morning I ran myself and my closest 67-marker matches (listed in the first post above). We ranged from 150-390 years from the modal, which I figure gives us a rough approximation of the time to our most recent common ancestor. So, let's round off a bit and call it 200-400 years (from the mid-twentieth century, when I think all of us were born). I'm thinking mid 17th century makes the most sense and probably in Wales.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 08:29:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2013, 11:19:01 AM »

Just for a comparison I will provide my situation. My paternal ancestry is documented 11 generations back to the 16th century and my extremely uncommon surname is from a small town in Spain. I have a 109 marker match with another person who also has the same surname and has documented ancestry 12 generations back to the 16th century to the same town my ancestors were from. Due to a lack of more documentation of the surname we don't know how many generations back it is that we have a common ancestor. Even at 24 generations the probability that our common ancestor lived at that time is only at 99.98%

I hope this helps in some way.

Thanks, Armando.

Do you mean your match is 109/111? If so, that's pretty close.

At 67 markers, I use the rough rule of thumb of 100-150 years for every unit of genetic distance. Like I said, it's a rough rule of thumb, not precise. That would put my 63/67 matches at within 400-600 years to the most recent common ancestor, with those numbers the outer bound. In other words, the relationship could be even closer than those numbers suggest.



Yes, my match is 109/111 and we still don't have a common ancestor in the last 450 years or so. We also have a 66/67 match with a GD of 1. My match has a DYS458 of 15 and mine is 16. Using the rule of thumb of 150 years for every GD at 67 markers it's still off by at least 300 years in my situation. This is what I wanted to point out.

Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2013, 12:39:53 PM »

Just for a comparison I will provide my situation. My paternal ancestry is documented 11 generations back to the 16th century and my extremely uncommon surname is from a small town in Spain. I have a 109 marker match with another person who also has the same surname and has documented ancestry 12 generations back to the 16th century to the same town my ancestors were from. Due to a lack of more documentation of the surname we don't know how many generations back it is that we have a common ancestor. Even at 24 generations the probability that our common ancestor lived at that time is only at 99.98%

I hope this helps in some way.

Thanks, Armando.

Do you mean your match is 109/111? If so, that's pretty close.

At 67 markers, I use the rough rule of thumb of 100-150 years for every unit of genetic distance. Like I said, it's a rough rule of thumb, not precise. That would put my 63/67 matches at within 400-600 years to the most recent common ancestor, with those numbers the outer bound. In other words, the relationship could be even closer than those numbers suggest.



Yes, my match is 109/111 and we still don't have a common ancestor in the last 450 years or so. We also have a 66/67 match with a GD of 1. My match has a DYS458 of 15 and mine is 16. Using the rule of thumb of 150 years for every GD at 67 markers it's still off by at least 300 years in my situation. This is what I wanted to point out.



But 300 years is an outer bound. My own youngest son is two off me at 67 markers. A 109/111 match is a relative within genealogical time. The fact that you don't know who your most recent common ancestor is is a mystery, but it doesn't alter the fact that you two are related and probably pretty closely.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 12:40:38 PM by rms2 » Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2013, 06:59:31 PM »

Yes, we are related but not within the last 13 generations.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2013, 08:58:28 PM »

Yes, we are related but not within the last 13 generations.

That's pretty amazing for such a close match at 111 markers.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2013, 06:28:36 PM »

One of my closest matches above, Webb, kit 163684, has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers. He is the first of my close matches to do so. Hopefully, the rest will too, eventually.
Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2013, 11:13:27 PM »

One of my closest matches above, Webb, kit 163684, has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers. He is the first of my close matches to do so. Hopefully, the rest will too, eventually.
I would expect zero to two additional GD between you two. Three total Hts would allow a nice modal age to be calculated for your variety. 111 markers brings down the number of generations per GD as well with an increased confidence level.

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)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2013, 07:30:15 PM »

One of my closest matches above, Webb, kit 163684, has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers. He is the first of my close matches to do so. Hopefully, the rest will too, eventually.
I would expect zero to two additional GD between you two. Three total Hts would allow a nice modal age to be calculated for your variety. 111 markers brings down the number of generations per GD as well with an increased confidence level.

MJost



Webb will be the third one in our cluster with 111 markers. The others are Self, kit 53479, and me, but Webb is the first of my close matches to go out to 111 markers. I think Self is a gd of 11 or 12 away from me.
Logged

thetick
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2013, 03:39:43 PM »

The mutation rates vary pretty drastically and can happen any time ... like example posted above about a son being 2 step at 67 markers!

As a data point my 5th cousin twice removed confirmed also by genealogy  is a 66/67 match to me.  Our common ancestor was born on 1700 and he's 9 generations back from me.
Logged

YDNA: R1b-SRY2627
MtDNA: H5a1f
ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2013, 07:14:52 AM »

The mutation rates vary pretty drastically and can happen any time ... like example posted above about a son being 2 step at 67 markers!

As a data point my 5th cousin twice removed confirmed also by genealogy  is a 66/67 match to me.  Our common ancestor was born on 1700 and he's 9 generations back from me.

I think your situation and mine help show how little the markers can change at times. Do the two of you plan on getting a 111 marker test? That could help even more. If your 67 markers changed only once in 9 generations and my 111 markers twice in at least 13 generations it would be interesting to see what your results show at 111 markers.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2013, 11:20:01 AM »

Three total Hts would allow a nice modal age to be calculated for your variety. 111 markers brings down the number of generations per GD as well with an increased confidence level.

If that be the case, I'd like to see your modal age for Z220/L484.  I'm saying that to distinguish us, currently group Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project, from various other L484s (including one guy, Moscia, elsewhere under DF27); so far, we haven't been assigned our decimal places, and Mike has dubbed us L484.NS, for convenience. 

We have four 111 marker haplotypes in our variety, representing separate families with no apparent relationships within "genealogical time."  (One has a no-call at DYS534, so his might be considered a 110 marker Ht.)  As far as I'm aware Mike's magic spreadsheet stops at 67 markers, but if you know a way past that little wall, the relevant Hts are numbers 962-965 in his R1b-P312xL21 Haplotypes file.  One more man has a 67 marker test, he's #967 -- but he is kin to me, so adding that Ht would skew the sample.

Not to say that all of time isn't genealogical, but that's a phrase people use.  Anyway this thread is about zeroing in on the homeland, not genealogy per se.  We've just about pared that down to Atlantic-facing Europe, woo hoo.
Logged

R1b Z196*
chris1
Senior Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 66


« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2013, 03:35:59 PM »

Three total Hts would allow a nice modal age to be calculated for your variety. 111 markers brings down the number of generations per GD as well with an increased confidence level.

If that be the case, I'd like to see your modal age for Z220/L484.  I'm saying that to distinguish us, currently group Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project, from various other L484s (including one guy, Moscia, elsewhere under DF27); so far, we haven't been assigned our decimal places, and Mike has dubbed us L484.NS, for convenience.  

We have four 111 marker haplotypes in our variety, representing separate families with no apparent relationships within "genealogical time."  (One has a no-call at DYS534, so his might be considered a 110 marker Ht.)  As far as I'm aware Mike's magic spreadsheet stops at 67 markers, but if you know a way past that little wall, the relevant Hts are numbers 962-965 in his R1b-P312xL21 Haplotypes file.  One more man has a 67 marker test, he's #967 -- but he is kin to me, so adding that Ht would skew the sample.

Not to say that all of time isn't genealogical, but that's a phrase people use.  Anyway this thread is about zeroing in on the homeland, not genealogy per se.  We've just about pared that down to Atlantic-facing Europe, woo hoo.
I've used  Ken Nordtvedt's Generations111T (http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net), so I gave it a go with L484. Putting your four 111 marker results ('Jra. R1b-Z220 / L484' in the P312 and Subclades project) through it, 'GA coal' (Coalescence) estimate was 1792 years ago, or 208 AD.  I entered the 'no call'  as 15 at 534, like the other three.

Using those four 111 marker results plus the one 67 marker result in Generations111T, the founder (GA) came out at 2539 years ago (around 539 BC) Coalescence (GA coal) came out at 1742 years ago (around 258 AD).
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 05:57:26 PM by chris1 » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2013, 11:13:34 PM »

Thanks for that.  These dates are earlier than those derived by Hans van Vliet several months ago, using a different method (pairwise mismatch sets).  I think I'll see if I can get him back aboard -- he has posted here (as Spanjool), but not recently.  We have better data now than we did when he ran his numbers.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2013, 11:19:38 PM »


If that be the case, I'd like to see your modal age for Z220/L484.  I'm saying that to distinguish us, currently group Jra in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project, from various other L484s (including one guy, Moscia, elsewhere under DF27); so far, we haven't been assigned our decimal places, and Mike has dubbed us L484.NS, for convenience. 

We have four 111 marker haplotypes in our variety, representing separate families with no apparent relationships within "genealogical time." .
Razyn,

I just pulled the L484.NS+ from the latest MikeW's P312xL21 spreadsheet

111(48) using Bird's q STRs

InterClade Coalescence (n-1) Age: R1b-P312>Z220** & R1b-P312>L484.NS+
Count N=7

Generations____StdDevInGen____YBP____+OR-YBP____Max-YBP   
93.3___ 23.0____2,800.2____688.9____3,489.0


Interclade Modal Founder's: R1b-P312>Z220** & R1b-P312>L484.NS+
Count N=4

Generations____StdDevInGen____YBP____+OR-YBP____Max-YBP
105.6___18.6____3,168.8____556.9____3,725.7

dz209-220-10-C1's
f121084   Hall
f195834   Hulan
fN58749   Reno
f44479   Richert

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)
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2013, 11:30:01 PM »

And thank you, too, Mark.  When it rains, it pours.  Separately (on 2-3 other forums) we have a colloquy this evening about the placement of Z210, which looks to be below Z220 but above Z216/Z278.  The relationship between Z210 and L484 is unknown at this time.  But, as always, we're working on it.  The only place currently available for testing Z210 is on the Geno2 chip -- and, coincidentally, one of our Jra guys (217955) ordered that test, a little over a week ago.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2013, 11:40:04 PM »

And thank you, too, Mark.  When it rains, it pours.  Separately (on 2-3 other forums) we have a colloquy this evening about the placement of Z210, which looks to be below Z220 but above Z216/Z278.  The relationship between Z210 and L484 is unknown at this time.  But, as always, we're working on it.  The only place currently available for testing Z210 is on the Geno2 chip -- and, coincidentally, one of our Jra guys (217955) ordered that test, a little over a week ago.
Ok, with the unknown ancestral SNP for L484.NS+'s, here is the

IntraClade Coalescence (n-1) Age
2,429.0___+_641.6   Max 3,070.6

Intraclade Founder's Modal Age 
2,880.9___ +-698.7    Max 3,579.7

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)
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 0.101 seconds with 19 queries.