If YOU ARE ONE, BE ONE

[Rick]

Interesting indeed, gents. I always thought that I have an unusual haplotype too (closest matches on 37 markers are one at 32/37 and 18 at 31/37). But, the slow markers give me many close matches, one exact 23/23 match, 18 22/23 matches and over 100 21/23 matches. As I mentioned they are mostly in NW Europe and the British Isles. Also, the person I match closest with on 37 markers, a Gathercole, is also one of my 22/23 matches on the slow markers. I find him on John McEwan's website listed as one of the S21+ results. Stevo, I mentioned to you on the R1b forum that I'd probably wait for FTDNA to introduce this test, but I think I may have to jump the gun on that and check with the other company!
Cheers, Rick

[F.E.C.]

Another fellow R1b1c9 on the way I see.

If you can face the cost of the Ethnoancestry's test you definitely should give it a try, Rick.

I wonder what is the best policy for these companies: to focus on the search of new SNP's or to continuously improve Y-STR marker tests.
I think the second option is becoming less and less useful for genealogical purposes: once you have a 67/67 match with a guy you wouldn't need any more clues to estabilish your relatedness.

Perhaps, now that FTDNA has achieved such a noteworthy result commercializing the Y-DNA 67 marker test, they can finally try to give Ethnoancestry some competition in the SNP field

[Stevo]

I tried Rick's slow-mutating markers technique, but I set my GD from 0-2. I got a bunch of results, so many that I did not want to count them all and distribute them to their various countries, so I just looked at the ones with the greatest numbers.

I had 84 at a GD of 2 and under from England! Whoa!

My next biggest cluster of folks came from Germany, with 22.

Of those 22, one was actually from Poland, but he has the surname Birnbach, which is German. Another was from Switzerland but has the surname Hunsinger, also German. I included those two in my German count because it seemed to make sense to do so.

I had two from the Netherlands which I suppose I could have included in my German group, but I did not. They would have brought my German numbers to 24.

It was interesting to me that I had four from Croatia and two from Slovakia.

Four men (I only included those with an identified European origin) matched me exactly on the 23 slow-mutating markers. Three of them were from England and one was from Scotland (surname Morrison).

There were some folks from Ireland and Scotland in my bunch, but it seemed to me most of them had English surnames, with only a few exceptions.

At those 23 slow-mutating markers I was only 2 off the East Anglian Modal (ID J2CGH). When I tried it at all 37 markers, however, I was off it by 15!

The vast majority of those who had "Unknown" or an American location listed in the Origin column had English or German surnames.

Okay, so what did I learn?

Well . . . England . . . Germany . . .

Anglo-Saxon maybe?

[MMaddi]

I tried Rick's slow-mutating markers technique, but I set my GD from 0-2. I got a bunch of results, so many that I did not want to count them all and distribute them to their various countries, so I just looked at the ones with the greatest numbers....

It was interesting to me that I had four from Croatia and two from Slovakia.

One thing you should think about is that the database is heavily weighted toward the British Isles in ancestral background, since that's the predominant ancestry of most Americans, especially those who do genealogy research.

So if you were able to determine the percentage of those of UK ancestry who were in your results (as compared to all UK ancestry R1b's in the database) versus the percentage of those of German ancestry who were in your results (as compared to all German ancestry R1b's in the database), you might find that those of German ancestry are a higher percentage.

And the fact that 4 R1b's from Croatia and 2 from Slovakia show up might be very significant. First of all, R1b is probably less common a haplogroup in those two nations than it is in the UK and Germany. And also consider the fact that there may not be many R1b's from Croatia and Slovakia in the databse. That would make those that matched with you possibily a higher percentage than the UK or German matches represent.

Of course, we're talking about deep ancestry, so even if the Croatian or Slovakian matches tell you something about deep ancestry, it's probably very deep ancestry.

Mike

[Stevo]

I guess you're right. We have to consider the fact that the YSEARCH database is heavily skewed toward those of British ancestry.

That makes my German hits much more significant.

And I probably got all four Croatian R1bs in YSEARCH!

I think I will check that out in a minute.

[Rick]

At those 23 slow-mutating markers I was only 2 off the East Anglian Modal (ID J2CGH). When I tried it at all 37 markers, however, I was off it by 15!

I hadn't realized someone had created an E. Anglian profile. I tried the same, and was off by 3 on the 23 slow markers and by 9 on the whole 37.

Do you know if anyone has ever tried to reconstruct the modal haplotypes of the various Germanic tribes involved in the "Anglo-Saxon" invasions? I'd assume a deeper common origin for the Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Danes. Since these were tribal, it may be reasonable to postulate ralatively small, kin-based founding populations of each of these tribes, and thus relatively distinctive defining HTs. Assuming this to be the case (A big assumption I admit), wouldn't we expect them to be fairly similar on the slow-moving markers, but less so on the fast movers. If we can assume the East Anglia modal represents Angles, since this was the section of Britain the Angles removed to, might we expect to also find Saxon, Jute and Dane modal haplotypes, perhaps respectively in W. central Eng, Kent, and Yorkshire, or thereabouts?

I admit this is highly speculative, but Stevo, might your close match on the slow markers to the E. Anglia modal, coupled with a poor match on 37 indicate possibly Saxon, Jute or Dane, but not Angle? Or perhaps it is a match to the continental population whence they sprang.

Anyway, as I write this, I recall having read about some such "Tribes of Britain" project. Maybe this has already been done....

[Stevo]

Rick -

Could be. It is interesting that I was so close to that East Anglian modal on the 23 slow-mutators, but so off on the fast-mutators.

The prevalence of English and German matches on my slow-mutators makes me think Saxon, but I don't know.

I discovered the East Anglian modal because it popped up when I tried your 23 slow-mutators technique.

[Stevo]

Thanks, Rick!

By the way, thanks, Rick, for an excellent day in the old IF YOU ARE ONE, BE ONE thread!

Your slow-mutators technique was fun and, I believe, enlightening, as well.

I thoroughly enjoyed trying it and seeing the results. That was a really excellent idea.

The R1b crowd here can be pretty lively sometimes.

[Stevo]

. . . my 385b=16 also makes it very hard for me to match other R1b's.

Your 385b is high, and mine, at just 11 repeats, is low.

Almost no one has your 385b or mine!

Seems like the vast majority of R1bs have 11,14 at 385a,b. I have 11,11.

Did you see that post on the Rootsweb List yesterday by Ken Nordtvedt about the movement of markers up and down?

In fact, wasn't it in response to a query of yours, Mike?

If I recall correctly, Ken said something about the possibility that some markers go up and then, when they sort of "max out," the next mutation might take them down.

I wonder if there is any geographic significance to our 385b values.

[MMaddi]

Your 385b is high, and mine, at just 11 repeats, is low.

Almost no one has your 385b or mine!

Seems like the vast majority of R1bs have 11,14 at 385a,b. I have 11,11.

Did you see that post on the Rootsweb List yesterday by Ken Nordtvedt about the movement of markers up and down?

In fact, wasn't it in response to a query of yours, Mike?

If I recall correctly, Ken said something about the possibility that some markers go up and then, when they sort of "max out," the next mutation might take them down.

I wonder if there is any geographic significance to our 385b values.

Yes, Ken was responding to my question about mutations going up or down. It sounds like my idea about that and relating it to the relative ages of haplogroups and subclades with higher or lower modal values doesn't have much validity. But his answer was interesting in its own right.

I don't think there's any geographic significance to our 385b values or, given how many R1b's are in the database, it wouldn't be so hard to match anyone on that marker. It is the case that 385a-b are fast mutating markers, so the explanation must be that you and I just happened to have mutated on 385b significantly more than the normal range.

And when anyone moans about their unusual marker value or haplotype, they are always told the good news is that when you finally find someone you match up with, you can be sure it's the real deal. So just moan until that day comes.

Mike

[Stevo]

And when anyone moans about their unusual marker value or haplotype, they are always told the good news is that when you finally find someone you match up with, you can be sure it's the real deal. So just moan until that day comes.

Mike

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

How was that?

John McEwan made a point of telling me my DYS385b=11 is a bit unusual, although not totally unheard of.

Ah, well . . .

[ghetohound]

Hello Everyone.....

Still waiting on my brothers 59 marker. They have posted 37, the others expected date was the 21st (2 days past).

Is it a normal process for FTDNA to change (or update) the haplogroup? Im assuming as they progress with the markers they are predicting a tighter (dont know if im using the right word) haplogroup? We went from a r1b1 to a r1b1c.

Thanks!

[Stevo]

Hello Everyone.....

Still waiting on my brothers 59 marker. They have posted 37, the others expected date was the 21st (2 days past).

Is it a normal process for FTDNA to change (or update) the haplogroup? Im assuming as they progress with the markers they are predicting a tighter (dont know if im using the right word) haplogroup? We went from a r1b1 to a r1b1c.

Thanks!

That is interesting.

You don't have a Deep SNP-R1b on order for your brother, do you?

Have they developed a new modal for R1b1c and are predicting it based on STRs now?

Since I ordered a Deep SNP-R1b test, my haplogroup prediction no longer shows up on my personal page. All I have is a "Testing in Progress" thingee.

It used to say "R1b1."

[ghetohound]

Hi Stevo...

No...no SNP test, the 59 marker. 37 are in, and originally they had him listed as r1b1. Then today...I go and check and it says r1b1c....

Im trying to catch up on all this stuff. I was reading into my mtdna..and now all of this <snicker> exciting!!!

[Stevo]

Hi Stevo...

No...no SNP test, the 59 marker. 37 are in, and originally they had him listed as r1b1. Then today...I go and check and it says r1b1c....

Im trying to catch up on all this stuff. I was reading into my mtdna..and now all of this <snicker> exciting!!!

I wish I knew the criteria for predicting not just R1b1 but R1b1c.

Then I could check my own markers against them.

My Deep SNP-R1b isn't due until July 17.

I figure that is what I am, since most of my near-hits that know that much about their subclade are R1b1c.

I think I'll be R1b1c*, but you never know.

BTW, you do know the "59 marker" test is now the 67 marker test? Your brother will get 67 and not just 59 markers.