Originally posted by 1798
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DNA Results from Asturias
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by lgmayka View PostTwo 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
-
-
Originally posted by 1798 View PostI 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
-
-
Originally posted by lgmayka View PostNo. 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.
If the men in your project test positive for S5520 what difference will that make?
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by 1798 View PostI 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?
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.Last edited by MMaddi; 18 October 2014, 04:46 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by 1798 View PostAll of the testers in the U106 project know which group they belong to.
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
-
-
Originally posted by 1798 View PostLepenski 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.
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
-
-
Originally posted by MMaddi View PostThat'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.
The admins of the projects should have a good idea which subgroup a tester belongs to.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by lgmayka View PostChuckle.
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.
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
-
-
Originally posted by 1798 View PostI thought that it would apply to all projects.The smaller projects will benefit more.
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 PostThe admins of the projects should have a good idea which subgroup a tester belongs to.
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.Last edited by MMaddi; 19 October 2014, 11:10 AM.
Comment
-
Comment