J2 Discussion

[rsychev]

I just received the results of my SNP tests. At least these are the results from my nephew who is a Soule. The haplogroup is J2e1 and the results are M102+, M12+, M172+, M137-, M158-, M163-, M166-, M205-, M267-, M280-, M339-, M365-, M367-, 368-, 390-, M47-, M62-, M67-, M92-, M99-.
If anyone know what this all means, please let me know. It's all a mystery to me.
Joan

Join to The Y-Haplogroup J DNA Project and to the Y-Haplogroup J Forum!

The footprint of J2e1 (M102) on the European map indicates some sort of connection between the southern Balkans and north-central Italy. One possible explanation is that J2e1 may have dispersed into Europe from the Balkans, but Semino et al had no suggestions of any cultures seen in the archeological record known to connect those two regions. ( One of the E3b sub-groups also seems to have entered Europe through the Balkans.) The map by Semino et al titled "J-M102" suggests that J2e1 may have subsequently spread from north-central Italy west across Europe. Some of the highest frequencies that Semino et al saw for J2e1 were Albania (14.3% of total population), north-central Italy (9.6%), Greece (6.5%), the southern Caucasus (6.3%), Croatia (6.2%), Bernais (3.8%), and India, Nepal, Pakistan (3-8%). Raito et al found J2e's at a rate of 14% among the Saami in Kola, Russia. Semino et al estimated the date of the M102 mutation at about 8000 years ago.

J2e1 is the one J sub-group that has a distinctive enough STR haplotype that it may be possible to recognize it from the others. It differs from the usual J haplotype by DYS19=15, DYS389i=12, DYS390=24, and YCAII=19,20. Cinnioglu et al also report that J2e1 can be distinguished by its alleles at DYS461. There are some nomenclature difficulties, but I think that Relative Genetics, and DNA Heritage would (since June 2004) report that J2e1 has DYS461=9 or 10 (these values are larger by 2 than the values given in Cinnioglu's paper). Those labs would report most R1b's and I's as DYS461=12, and most other J's would have DYS461=12 or 13. Examples of haplotypes that may be J2e1 can be seen here.

Cinnioglu et al also found that more than half of the J2e1's in Turkey belonged to a J2e1 subgroup defined by M241 (not in the 2002 YCC nomenclature). Semino et al also reported what may be a sub-group of J2e1-M241 defined by M280. Their data are sparse, but M280 may be worth testing since it was only seen in Greece (2.2%).

It may also be possible to further divide the J2e1 haplogroup into two sub-lineages based on a different kind of test called 49a,f Taq/I. It's not a SNP test, but it's a different kind of Y "marker" that mutates almost as slowly as SNPs. Most J2's give a 49a,f Taq/I result called ht7. But about 2/3's of the J2e1's give a result of ht24, and about a third of the J2e1's give a result of ht8 (ht8 is also seen in most J1* M267).

Source link here

SNP Tests

I just received the results of my SNP tests. At least these are the results from my nephew who is a Soule. The haplogroup is J2e1 and the results are M102+, M12+, M172+, M137-, M158-, M163-, M166-, M205-, M267-, M280-, M339-, M365-, M367-, 368-, 390-, M47-, M62-, M67-, M92-, M99-.
If anyone know what this all means, please let me know. It's all a mystery to me.
Joan

Back...

My la_roccia account info got lost and I have a new ISP/email address. Just checking on this thread that I began some time back. I hope all you DNA heads are doing well.

[F.E.C.]

First of all, it is F.E.C.
I'm glad, though, that you've mistaken the E with an A and not with another vowel...

Secondly, get over it: no use for you to mention names of people who are known only to Americans, I live on the other site of the Atlantic much closer than you to the realities you talk about from afar. Asia is huge and saying that someone looks Asian doesn't necessarily mean that he looks Chinese

[caj2]

funny track this thread has taken.

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

I still think it's funny F.A.C. thinks Asians and Persians look alike.
Not at all!!! LOL. I mean, do you confuse Christiane Amanpour with Connie Chung? They look nothing alike!

[Stevo]

I don't think humanity's relative lack of fur has anything to do with "spotting disease-bearing organisms on one's skin."

I'm not sure exactly what it means.

I know that, generally speaking, more hair equals greater warmth in colder weather. Less hair means less heat retention when it's hot.

I don't think the relative absence of body hair among certain men represents any sort of advance at all. It is simply a difference.

[Johnserrat]

Compared to other animals, whether in the tropics or arctic, humans have very little hair. It is very rare for mammals to be hairless. When we say Mediteranean people are more hairy than Inuit, this is still only relative to each other. Compared to almost any other mammal, even the hairiest person of Mediteranean extraction is still quite hairless.

I suppose that long manes and a beard can offer protection against the elements if an intrepid northerner was to walk around with their head uncovered in the winter, but they could just cover their head as well as any other exposed body parts. I don't think that other body hair would make much of a difference to survival.

Based on the Out-of Africa model, people probably come from the Ethiopia area which is quite warm. You are probably correct that humans lost their body hair while living in a warm climate. Nevertheless, once humans started wearing clothing, any remaining body hair in my view became a survival liability because it is more difficult to spot disease-bearing organisms on one's skin. In terms of sexual selection, I'm certain that different people have different preferences, vive la differance!

I'm with Nas, no shaving cream or expensive shaving kits means more money for pints!

John

[Stevo]

What about those famous denizens of cold-weather zones, the "Wool-less" Mammoth, the Naked Cave Bear, and the Completely Bald Sheep?

Who ever heard of them?

If they existed (they didn't and don't), they would be easy to spot: just look for the blue skin and chattering teeth.

Isn't it true that most land mammals who have adapted to cold climates are protected by very thick fur/hair?

Why would humans who have actually adapted to the cold shed their hair?

It doesn't make sense.

Body hair would only help clothing retain body heat.

I think that perhaps any relatively hairless populations now residing in cold climates moved there from warmer zones after losing their protective fuzz and are not really native to those areas.

Hairier peoples who now reside in warmer climes probably also once lived in places where their furriness was an asset.

[Stevo]

In terms of the advantages of not having much body hair, I found the following article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3807

I note as well that some the least hairy people in the world, like the Inuit and Tibetans, also live in some of the coldest climates. People who live around the Mediteranean are some of the hairiest in the world.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2155.htm

John

There are plenty of relatively hairless groups of people who live in very very warm climes, as well as hairy people who live in cold climates.

That first paper seemed a bit crackpot to me, probably authored by some hairless dweeb. Loss of body hair the product of sexual selection? Hairless mates appear more fit, etc?

Male body hair is a secondary sexual characteristic, a by-product of adequate testosterone production. I have heard many many females remark that they find men with hairy chests sexually attractive. Of course, excessive body hair, like that of an ape, can be repellant.

It could be that the relatively hairless people who currently inhabit colder climes migrated there from warmer regions. It is fairly well known that the Mediterranean region was not always the warm zone it is today.

Besides, I know plenty of men who are hairy, have heavy beards, and whose ancestors came from Northern Europe. I'm one of them. I can grow a thick, full beard in two weeks. My students said I looked like a biker, so I shaved it off.

[F.E.C.]

Without getting into pathology Yeah hirsutism is more usual on the Mediterranean than in Northern Europe, or in other cold climates.
Nevertheless, once I've heard someone say (correct me if I'm wrong) that hairs as well as a short, stocky build would help the first Europeans to survive in the cold, saving the heat in their bodies.
Moreover there are many parts of the world were the climate is all but cold inhabited by hairless people (sub-Saharan Africa, Central and most of South America, Polynesia...)

[nas]

Hair Statistics

In terms of the advantages of not having much body hair, I found the following article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3807

I note as well that some the least hairy people in the world, like the Inuit and Tibetans, also live in some of the coldest climates. People who live around the Mediteranean are some of the hairiest in the world.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2155.htm

John

Hello,

No hair on the chest,almost 61 years old...but still as smooth as a baby .
Markers from S.E.Asia,Uyghur,Native Siberian,Inuit and Athabascan...maybe that's the reason why ;.
No need to depilate...money saved...and can drink more pints .

Nas

[Johnserrat]

In terms of the advantages of not having much body hair, I found the following article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3807

I note as well that some the least hairy people in the world, like the Inuit and Tibetans, also live in some of the coldest climates. People who live around the Mediteranean are some of the hairiest in the world.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2155.htm

John

[Stevo]

I think it may actually be the reverse. After our ancestors started wearing clothes, body hair became a liability. Unfortunately, our ancestors did not bathe very often and lice, ticks, and other vermin would infest the hairy parts of the body where they would not easily be seen. In the cold north, people would have worn more clothes and have been more susceptible to infestation. As a result, it would make sense that having less body hair improved one's chances for survival. As a person who will probably never be able to grow a mustache nor have any need for shaving cream, it is pretty clear that my ancestors passed down this advantage to me.

John

I'm not sure about that. It seems to me most persons from warmer climes have less body hair than those from colder climes.

There may be exceptions to that, but that is my personal observation anyway.

Besides, lice and other vermin will infest the naked as readily as they will the clothed, and even those without much excess body hair still have enough head and pubic hair to provide them a home.

Not having lice is, of course, much more comfortable than having them, but since when do lice threaten anyone's survival so that having less body hair would be a survival advantage?

[Johnserrat]

I think it may actually be the reverse. After our ancestors started wearing clothes, body hair became a liability. Unfortunately, our ancestors did not bathe very often and lice, ticks, and other vermin would infest the hairy parts of the body where they would not easily be seen. In the cold north, people would have worn more clothes and have been more susceptible to infestation. As a result, it would make sense that having less body hair improved one's chances for survival. As a person who will probably never be able to grow a mustache nor have any need for shaving cream, it is pretty clear that my ancestors passed down this advantage to me.

John

[Stevo]

I always figured hairiness had something to do with adaptation to the cold, but I guess if that were the case, women from cold climates would be as hairy as the men.

Yuck!