If YOU ARE ONE, BE ONE

[MMaddi]

I checked that out, Mike. You do seem to have a similar haplotype to those Hawkins guys. Strange. You're probably right about S21.

I wonder that you got so few folks with a GD from you under 10.

Did you select R1b1c as the haplogroup?

Maybe you would get more hits if you selected R1b1 or just R1b?

I didn't put anything down for haplogroup. My problem in the past with getting nobody with a GD from me of 10 or less is that I always specified R1b1c. So, with no haplogroup specified there are only 3 men, with the same surname, in the entire ysearch database within a GD of 10 from me.

It's obvious that I have an unusual R1b haplotype. I am off the AMH modal on 15 of 37 markers and am off by two on some markers, not just one. When FTDNA predicted me as R1b, because Whit Athey's predictor gave me such a low value for R1b, I doubted FTDNA's prediction. That's what led me to SNP test with Ethnoancestry last year in the first place.

Is there a publication on the web somewhere that says which markers are slow mutators and which are faster?

If you go to any FTDNA project website hosted by FTDNA, look at the header column on the haplotype table. Those markers in red are fast mutating and those in black are slow mutating. Take a look at the haplotype table on the Sicily Project website as an example - www.familytreedna.com/public/Sicily.

The way it's supposed to work is that the fast mutating markers help you sort out different lines of the same family, for instance 3rd or 4th cousins may differ on fast mutating markers. It would seem that the slow mutating markers would help you exclude a recent common ancestor and probably help determine deep ancestry and haplogroup subclade questions.

Mike

[Stevo]

I didn't put anything down for haplogroup. My problem in the past with getting nobody with a GD from me of 10 or less is that I always specified R1b1c. So, with no haplogroup specified there are only 3 men, with the same surname, in the entire ysearch database within a GD of 10 from me.

It's obvious that I have an unusual R1b haplotype. I am off the AMH modal on 15 of 37 markers and am off by two on some markers, not just one. When FTDNA predicted me as R1b, because Whit Athey's predictor gave me such a low value for R1b, I doubted FTDNA's prediction. That's what led me to SNP test with Ethnoancestry last year in the first place.

Oh, wow. I wasn't aware of that. I noticed that the R1b Project still has a "-" in your haplogroup box. Why hasn't that been updated? (They have me listed as "R1," as I'm sure you know.)

I'm way off the AMH, too, and share those 393=13, 390=23, 392=11 values with you.

I think our ancestors spent the LGM somewhere other than in Iberia, but I could be wrong.

Still, though I think my haplotype is a bit weird in some ways, yours must be weirder, because I got quite a few 10-and-under hits when I tried that technique that DMac cooked up.

If you go to any FTDNA project website hosted by FTDNA, look at the header column on the haplotype table. Those markers in red are fast mutating and those in black are slow mutating. Take a look at the haplotype table on the Sicily Project website as an example - www.familytreedna.com/public/Sicily.

The way it's supposed to work is that the fast mutating markers help you sort out different lines of the same family, for instance 3rd or 4th cousins may differ on fast mutating markers. It would seem that the slow mutating markers would help you exclude a recent common ancestor and probably help determine deep ancestry and haplogroup subclade questions.

Mike

I'll check that out, Mike, thanks.

You've been a great teacher to me in my short time here.

[MMaddi]

Oh, wow. I wasn't aware of that. I noticed that the R1b Project still has a "-" in your haplogroup box. Why hasn't that been updated? (They have me listed as "R1," as I'm sure you know.)

Anything you see on FTDNA's haplotype tables for haplogroup is based on what they know from testing done through them. If the haplogroup is in green, that means that FTDNA has done a SNP test on that customer. Those in red are predictions without a SNP test.

Those with a "-" (like me) are those who FTDNA doesn't feel comfortable predicting in the absence of a SNP test. Since I already SNP tested with Ethnoancestry, I felt no need to SNP test with FTDNA, especially since Ethnoancestry tests for the newly discovered SNPs that FTDNA does not currently test for. However, FTDNA does not incorporate testing of their customers by other companies in their database. So, as far as FTDNA is concerned, I can't be predicted with their present knowledge, even though I am tested beyond anything FTDNA presently tests. If you go to John McEwan's page with the table of R1b's who have SNP tests, you'll see I'm listed as R1b1c9*, because John relies on self-reporting by R1b's, not on FTDNA information.

Mike

[Stevo]

Anything you see on FTDNA's haplotype tables for haplogroup is based on what they know from testing done through them. If the haplogroup is in green, that means that FTDNA has done a SNP test on that customer. Those in red are predictions without a SNP test.

Those with a "-" (like me) are those who FTDNA doesn't feel comfortable predicting in the absence of a SNP test. Since I already SNP tested with Ethnoancestry, I felt no need to SNP test with FTDNA, especially since Ethnoancestry tests for the newly discovered SNPs that FTDNA does not currently test for. However, FTDNA does not incorporate testing of their customers by other companies in their database. So, as far as FTDNA is concerned, I can't be predicted with their present knowledge, even though I am tested beyond anything FTDNA presently tests. If you go to John McEwan's page with the table of R1b's who have SNP tests, you'll see I'm listed as R1b1c9*, because John relies on self-reporting by R1b's, not on FTDNA information.

Mike

I did see that. I just wondered why the R1b Project y-results page had not been updated. Now I know.

I saw that R1b1c9 is now listed on the FTDNA R1b tree. Does that mean they are testing for its SNPs now?

[Stevo]

I mentioned this in my last post and got no response, so I will try again, in part to try to revivify this R1b thread.

I noticed that R1b1c9 is on the FTDNA Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree.

Does that mean FTDNA is testing for it now?

Hmmm?

[MMaddi]

I mentioned this in my last post and got no response, so I will try again, in part to try to revivify this R1b thread.

I noticed that R1b1c9 is on the FTDNA Y-Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree.

Does that mean FTDNA is testing for it now?

Hmmm?

What you noted about R1b1c9 is certainly interesting, but the answer is no. Until Ethnoancestry releases the information on how to test for and find the S21 SNP, they'll be the only ones testing for it.

I think it's progress that FTDNA is willing to acknowledge the existence of that subclade by listing that in their haplotree. At least now Francesco and I and other S21+ customers are now recognized as what we are proven to be!

Mike

[Stevo]

What you noted about R1b1c9 is certainly interesting, but the answer is no. Until Ethnoancestry releases the information on how to test for and find the S21 SNP, they'll be the only ones testing for it.

I think it's progress that FTDNA is willing to acknowledge the existence of that subclade by listing that in their haplotree. At least now Francesco and I and other S21+ customers are now recognized as what we are proven to be!

Mike

I just sent off an email to FTDNA to ask about testing for R1b1c9.

[Stevo]

Okay.

What do we know about the various R1b subclades?

Can someone lay it out here for all to see?

We were just talking about R1b1c9, for example.

What do we know about it?

Where does it cluster geographically, if it does so at all?

[F.E.C.]

Summarize it all can take too much time and space.

As usual I would recommend this site for infos about R1b subclades:

http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/

only one caveat: the R1b1c9 part was written in December, when S21+ individuals from the continent hadn't been reported yet.

[F.E.C.]

I just sent off an email to FTDNA to ask about testing for R1b1c9.

I wonder if Ethnoancestry's is a sine die "exclusive right". I mean is there any particular term by which they have to share their knowledge with other companies?

[Stevo]

Summarize it all can take too much time and space.

As usual I would recommend this site for infos about R1b subclades:

http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/

only one caveat: the R1b1c9 part was written in December, when S21+ individuals from the continent hadn't been reported yet.

My impression is that there isn't much definitive information about R1b1c9 right now.

They've identified it, John estimates it's just over 9,000 years old, but beyond that very little is known.

It seems that most of the guys identified as belonging to it are Brits (or have British surnames), yet one of its STR clusters is called Frisian.

I'm wondering how they arrived at the conclusion that that particular cluster should be called by that regional name.

My impression was that the STRs that make up the modal haplotype for the Frisian cluster predominate in "Greater Frisia," i.e., the Netherlands, North Germany, and Jutland.

But where is the evidence that that is true?

Where are the German, Dutch, and Danish surnames one would expect for such a cluster?

The Dutch surname Damvelt appears but is unique among mostly British names.

I know you said the results from the Continent had not been reported when the information at John's site was posted, but I am left wondering how the Frisian Cluster came to be called that rather than the "British Cluster."

[Stevo]

I wonder if Ethnoancestry's is a sine die "exclusive right". I mean is there any particular term by which they have to share their knowledge with other companies?

I imagine that if EA was able to find S21, the folks at the University of Arizona have already found it, too, as well as the other downstream R1b SNPs.

I am not sure how copyright law works in genetic nomenclature. I can't see how EA could possess an exclusive right to discover and name R1b SNPs. They don't own the human genome, after all.

I own my dna. If I send a sample to FTDNA, I am authorizing them to find out as much as they can about what is there and report back to me.

EA is not required to share its info with competitors, but I don't think it can prevent those competitors from reporting on the very same SNPs if they are able to find them themselves.

[F.E.C.]

My impression is that there isn't much definitive information about R1b1c9 right now.

They've identified it, John estimates it's just over 9,000 years old, but beyond that very little is known.

It seems that most of the guys identified as belonging to it are Brits (or have British surnames), yet one of its STR clusters is called Frisian.

I'm wondering how they arrived at the conclusion that that particular cluster should be called by that regional name.

My impression was that the STRs that make up the modal haplotype for the Frisian cluster predominate in "Greater Frisia," i.e., the Netherlands, North Germany, and Jutland.

But where is the evidence that that is true?

Where are the German, Dutch, and Danish surnames one would expect for such a cluster?

The Dutch surname Damvelt appears but is unique among mostly British names.

I know you said the results from the Continent had not been reported when the information at John's site was posted, but I am left wondering how the Frisian Cluster came to be called that rather than the "British Cluster."

Stevo, try to insert the modal values for the Frisian variety here:

http://www.ystr.org/index.html

you will see that, in the UK, it is heavily clustered in England and a good number of it is in Denmark too.
This suggests Frisian haplotypes probably came to Britain with the Germanic tribes living in "Greater Frisia" 1500 years ago.

Nevertheless, it's curious to find out how many Frisian modals can be found in Portugal.
Is it what remains of the Suebii (I see Frisian haplotypes in South Germany too, just where the Suebii where from).

[Stevo]

I wonder about data obtained via yhrd, since it uses only 10 markers.

At those 10 markers I have something like the Frisian haplotype, yet John McEwan says I don't because I don't match the people (mostly with British surnames) listed as R1b-Frisian on his web site.

Yet I have the DYS390=23, DYS391=11, DYS392=13 said to be characteristic of R1b-Frisian.

It makes no difference to me, Frisian or un-Frisian. I'm interested in the truth.

I'll try the Frisian modal - 10 markers worth anyway - at yhrd and see what pops up.

[Stevo]

Here's what I got from yhrd running Nordtvedt's R1b-Frisian modal haplotype.

Andalucía/Extremadura, Spain 1 / 386 Europe
Birmingham, UK 3 / 97 Europe
Budapest, Hungary 1 / 193 Europe
Central Bohemia, Czechia 2 / 252 Europe
Central Portugal 4 / 489 Europe
Denmark 4 / 247 Europe
England-Wales, UK [Afro-Caribbean] 1 / 107 Europe
Ireland 2 / 152 Europe
Leuven, Belgium 2 / 113 Europe
Ljubljana, Slovenia 1 / 180 Europe
London, UK 8 / 285 Europe
London, UK [Afro Caribbean] 1 / 290 Europe
Lyon, France 1 / 125 Europe
Madrid, Spain 4 / 152 Europe
Northern Portugal 5 / 564 Europe
Pyrenees, Spain 1 / 134 Europe
Southern Portugal 1 / 112 Europe
Stuttgart, Germany 5 / 453 Europe
Switzerland 2 / 149 Europe

There are a few Danish and German hits, but they're not exactly overwhelming. Look at all the hits from the Iberian Peninsula, for example.

Notice, too, that the German hits are from Stuttgart in southwestern Germany, outside "Greater Frisia." Where are the hits one would expect from the Netherlands and Ostfriesland?

Seems to me at 10 markers "Frisian" is all over the map of Europe.

I noticed that Nordtvedt's R1b modals chart says he used data from SMGF, except for DYS464, which he obtained from YSEARCH.

I'll check that out, too, when I get the chance.