Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Haplogroup type

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

  • Haplogroup type

    Hi All, I'm new here. Is Haplogroup R-L48 a subgroup of R-M269. I can find very little about R-L48 but my group R-M269 is a common one. I have tested to 111 MARKERS & have found 2 matches to genetic distance 7 & 8 but with completely different surnames than mine.
    Thanks Brillo



  • #2
    Go to https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/A . Enter R-L48 in the "Go to Branch Name" field and press enter. Scroll up to page and you'll see R-L48 is downstream (a subgroup) of R-M269.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Jim. It was someone with a very similar name, a variant spelling of mine but he is a sub group of R-M269 which is mine Haplogroup both tested to 111 markers.I need more participants for my Group I have on Family Tree DNA.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Brillo View Post
        Thanks Jim. It was someone with a very similar name, a variant spelling of mine but he is a sub group of R-M269 which is mine Haplogroup both tested to 111 markers.I need more participants for my Group I have on Family Tree DNA.
        I think everyone would like more participants. I'd also like to see more meaningful trees, one or two people marked private shouldn't be listed as a tree, and more kits with surname list. I understand a lot of those testing are adopted or only know one side of there tree, but they could state this in their profile

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jim Barrett View Post

          I think everyone would like more participants. I'd also like to see more meaningful trees, one or two people marked private shouldn't be listed as a tree, and more kits with surname list. I understand a lot of those testing are adopted or only know one side of there tree, but they could state this in their profile
          I couldn't agree more. I've commented on this many times here.

          Less than half my matches provide any surnames or locations. Considering that FTDNA as originally founded was committed toward attracting more serious devotees to genealogy than Ancestry now does, the lack of information provided by current subscribers here is useless.
          (O)ne or two people marked private shouldn't be listed as a tree...
          I've seen many wherein the few entries on these "trees" are all marked "private". All that does is to waste the time of those of us who click on them, only to find it is not a tree, at all. I have much empathy for adoptees. But statistically, they are relatively few in number. I also understand that some new subscribers (perhaps new transfers?) might feel obligated in some way to post "a" tree, usually containing nothing other than every entry being marked as "private".

          That is NOT a tree. That's just a waste of time for anyone who cares enough to click on it and view it. I don't know of any way to remedy this, other than to police such "trees" or to structure the tree feature differently on this site. But if FTDNA doesn't care about this nor know what to do about it, it will continue as it is.

          Comment

          Working...
          X