Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA Results from Asturias

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    There is no need to ask those who are U106 to test, only those who are Z156.
    Two men of Polish ancestry in my project have tested Z156+ but are not (yet) positive for any subclade such as Z305 or L1. They are kits 102524 and 198287. Care to pay for an S5520 test for either of them?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
      Two men of Polish ancestry in my project have tested Z156+ but are not (yet) positive for any subclade such as Z305 or L1. They are kits 102524 and 198287. Care to pay for an S5520 test for either of them?
      I find it hard enough to pay for my own tests but they should not do anything yet until the new SNP batch tests can be ordered. I think that one will be able to test for 50 SNPs under Z156 in the near future. If these two men are S5520 I will take that on board. What is the name of your project?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I find it hard enough to pay for my own tests but they should not do anything yet until the new SNP batch tests can be ordered. I think that one will be able to test for 50 SNPs under Z156 in the near future. If these two men are S5520 I will take that on board. What is the name of your project?
        I have looked at the three unknown Z156 haplotypes in the Polish project and their haplotypes are a lot different to mine. I would be surprised if they were S5520. S5520 is not for sale as a single SNP with FTDNA. I found it in my Chromo2 test.

        Comment


        • #64
          A lot of U106 men probably don't know whether they are Z156+

          Timothy Peterman

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
            A lot of U106 men probably don't know whether they are Z156+

            Timothy Peterman
            All of the testers in the U106 project know which group they belong to.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
              No. That was precisely my point: It is absurd to a priori "decide" that a 4800-year-old SNP first arose in Western Europe without comprehensive, dense sampling of the rest of Europe, and perhaps beyond--sampling that we do not have yet for even the most basic clades like U106, much less some obscure newly discovered subclade.

              And to "decide" a priori to discard any evidence contrary to one's pet hypothesis is utterly unscientific, and indeed intellectually dishonest (to oneself as well as others).

              In short: "Deciding" the geographic origin of a 4800-year-old SNP is not nearly as easy as one might wish.

              A wide variety of branches, oddly enough. And you're off by one order of magnitude. U106 is no more than 6000 years old.
              lgmayka
              If the men in your project test positive for S5520 what difference will that make?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                If the men in your project test positive for S5520 what difference will that make?
                Then we may have to reassess where that SNP first arose.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                  Then we may have to reassess where that SNP first arose.
                  I don't think so.
                  Lepenski Vir is a Mesolithic site in Serbia.
                  Brusco is a Scottish name.
                  Some of the men who are closest to both their haplotypes have names that are found in the Isles.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    I find it hard enough to pay for my own tests but they should not do anything yet until the new SNP batch tests can be ordered. I think that one will be able to test for 50 SNPs under Z156 in the near future. If these two men are S5520 I will take that on board. What is the name of your project?
                    That's not how the deep clade test will work for a major haplogroup like U106. At present, myself and the other R1-U106 project administrators are trying to determine which are the most important SNPs under U106 to submit as candidates for a U106 deep clade test.

                    Actually, given that we have identified 243 subclades (SNPs shared by 2 or more members), it will be necessary to have two deep clade tests for the U106 haplogroup. One will be for those who are L48+ (representing about half of the haplogroup) and the other will be for those who are U106+/L48-. That's the only way we can fit the most important SNPs in a deep clade test.

                    Do the math. Two tests with 60 SNPs each means that the tests will cover about half of the 243 known subclades. We'll have to choose the 120 SNPs defining the most prevalent subclades. Perhaps in the future when the deep clade tests are more established, we can carve out another couple of deep clade tests that get more specific and cover the uncovered subclades.

                    My point is that you should not expect a deep clade test for all the subclades of Z156, at least not in the initial deep clade test offerings.
                    MMaddi
                    yDNA: R-CTS2509; mtDNA: T2e
                    Last edited by MMaddi; 18 October 2014, 05:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      All of the testers in the U106 project know which group they belong to.
                      Your assumption is wrong - clearly so. Look at our project results table at https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults - specifically those on pages 3 and 4. I'm referring to these subgroups of the project members:

                      ZZZ Inactive or New U106, should test Z381 or upgrade to 111 markers
                      ZZZ Inactive or New U106+, L48-, should test Z156 or upgrade to 111 markers
                      ZZZ Inactive or New Z381>Z301>L48, should test Z9 or upgrade to 111 markers
                      ZZZ Inactive or New Z381>Z301>L48+, L47-, should test Z9 or upgrade to 111 markers
                      ZZZZ Pending Placement
                      ZZZZ FTDNA Predicted U106+ or below (SNP Test Required for Membership)
                      ZZZZ Possible U106 (SNP Test Required for Membership)

                      The members in those categories who don't have sufficient SNP testing for them or the project administrators to know their subclade probably represent about 30% of the almost 1,900 project members. We're hoping that an affordable deep clade test will get many of these members who need SNP testing to at least find what their major downstream subclade is.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        Lepenski Vir is a Mesolithic site in Serbia.
                        Brusco is a Scottish name.
                        Some of the men who are closest to both their haplotypes have names that are found in the Isles.
                        Chuckle.

                        Łopieński is a characteristically Slavic surname. The Slavic expansion has nothing to do with the Mesolithic, in Serbia or anywhere else.

                        Bruski is also Slavic or perhaps Slavicized German, but certainly not Scottish.

                        Łopieński has no near-matches at all (on his Y-DNA Matches page) beyond the meaningless 25-marker level.

                        At 67 markers, Bruski has two distance-5 near-matches with the (characteristically Slavic) Kimenkowski ancestral surname. At distance 6, he matches a Stuart--but that man has already tested L21+ and is hence a coincidental convergence.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                          That's not how the deep clade test will work for a major haplogroup like U106. At present, myself and the other R1-U106 project administrators are trying to determine which are the most important SNPs under U106 to submit as candidates for a U106 deep clade test.

                          Actually, given that we have identified 243 subclades (SNPs shared by 2 or more members), it will be necessary to have two deep clade tests for the U106 haplogroup. One will be for those who are L48+ (representing about half of the haplogroup) and the other will be for those who are U106+/L48-. That's the only way we can fit the most important SNPs in a deep clade test.

                          Do the math. Two tests with 60 SNPs each means that the tests will cover about half of the 243 known subclades. We'll have to choose the 120 SNPs defining the most prevalent subclades. Perhaps in the future when the deep clade tests are more established, we can carve out another couple of deep clade tests that get more specific and cover the uncovered subclades.

                          My point is that you should not expect a deep clade test for all the subclades of Z156, at least not in the initial deep clade test offerings.
                          I thought that it would apply to all projects.The smaller projects will benefit more.
                          The admins of the projects should have a good idea which subgroup a tester belongs to.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                            Chuckle.

                            Łopieński is a characteristically Slavic surname. The Slavic expansion has nothing to do with the Mesolithic, in Serbia or anywhere else.

                            Bruski is also Slavic or perhaps Slavicized German, but certainly not Scottish.

                            Łopieński has no near-matches at all (on his Y-DNA Matches page) beyond the meaningless 25-marker level.

                            At 67 markers, Bruski has two distance-5 near-matches with the (characteristically Slavic) Kimenkowski ancestral surname. At distance 6, he matches a Stuart--but that man has already tested L21+ and is hence a coincidental convergence.
                            When I entered their IDs at ysearch both showed that they are closer in haplotype and SNP to the Isles, which suggests that this is the place of origin. This is the search that I did for both.
                            Show users that tested at least 67 of the markers that I did.
                            maximum genetic distance of 1 per marker compared above 37 markers.
                            Limit search by Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a1a

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              In 1621 there were 30,000 Scots living in Poland. Some of them that moved there may have belonged to U106.
                              This is of topic.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                                I thought that it would apply to all projects.The smaller projects will benefit more.
                                It's true that smaller projects will get better coverage out of any deep clade test that FTDNA offers for the specific subclade of the project. However, FTDNA will probably only develop deep clade tests where they think they'll be enough testers for it to be efficient for batching and testing and also profitable for them.

                                It's possible that FTDNA may decline to develop and offer a deep clade test for a subclade that's too small for it to be worth their while. Also, there is some work needed by the project administrators to submit a proposed deep clade test to FTDNA. If the admins of a small subclade project don't put in the work, there probably won't be a deep clade test for that subclade.

                                Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                                The admins of the projects should have a good idea which subgroup a tester belongs to.
                                Regarding the admins knowing the subgroup of all the project members, see my post (#70) on the previous page at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...7&postcount=70.

                                As I posted there, about 30% of the R1b-U106 Project members have not done enough SNP testing to identify which branch or sub-branch of U106 they're on. For those who've tested L48+ (from the old deep clade test), we know that they're somewhere on that branch; L48 and its subclades is about half of U106. If they've only tested U106+ or haven't had a SNP test yet, we can't know what's their branch of U106.

                                We have varying degrees of "knowing" which branch a project member is on. It depends on how much SNP testing they've already done. For a significant number of project members, the new deep clade test will be their best bet to establish a fairly deep downstream subclade for themselves. If they don't anticipate spending the money for Big Y, they should order the deep clade test once it's offered.
                                MMaddi
                                yDNA: R-CTS2509; mtDNA: T2e
                                Last edited by MMaddi; 19 October 2014, 12:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X