Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Haplogroup G, wondering and questions

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

  • Haplogroup G, wondering and questions

    Always thought of my self as a natural born pure-blooded Viking. I’m tall, blond, semi blue-eyed and born in Denmark All 64 of my 4x great grand parents’ traces to solid Danish origin.
    A couple of days ago I got my Y-DNA result from the Genographic project and I’m Haplogroup G.
    Guess I’m not a Viking, but some slave snatched by some Vikings

    Anyway I’m somewhat disappointed with the depth of information one gets in the Genographic project. I thought the Genographic project would place one solid (or as much as possible) in some group, yet the first thing one notice when pulling over the data to FTDNA is a note saying your Haplogroup has not been determined by a specific test! What?
    Let me quote from the Genographic project result page:

    In the event that the analysis of your STRs was inconclusive, your Y chromosome was also tested for the presence of an informative Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). These are mutational changes in a single nucleotide base, and allow researchers to definitively place you in a genetic haplogroup.

    I understand this to mean that the Hg stated by Genographic is the absolutely best they could get, with or with out SNP. How come FTDNA does not agree with (or know) this? Either Genographic made a SNP if they where unsure of the group, or they did not make a SNP, because the result was already bullet-proof to begin with. Is Genographic making false statements or is FTDNA just trying to cash in on another SNP that is not really needed?

    If I read this page correctly http://home.comcast.net/~whitathey/galleles1.htm, and I like to think I do, I’m a near prototypical Haplogroup G subject.
    Yet if a try this https://home.comcast.net/~hapest5/hapest5a/hapest5.htm i get a 100% Haplogroup G2.
    Kind of discouraging that the “experts” lay this far from each other. Are the Genographic project not doing the work they state they will or are the others wrong or unaware of what Genographic state they have already tested.

    Haplogroup G is rare in Europe (couple of %) and even rarer in Denmark. This page list Denmark at 1% http://www.members.cox.net/morebanks/MoreG2.html with 3 subjects out of 247 samples.
    How can that be? Since I know at least 20 living males descending directly from my paternal line, who all must be Haplogroup G subjects too, right?
    If this is a correct assumption, would it be correct to postulate that my FTW database tree contains more living natural born Haplogroup G Danes, then I can find included in various studies on the net?

    So my question is really; how reliable is the origin theories of Haplogroup G, for that matter any Haplogroup? Is Haplogroup G really as rare as it’s made out to be, partially for Denmark, or is it just number of test subjects that is lacking?

  • #2
    First, the experts are not disagreeing. Some are classifying you as G, and others are more specifically classifying you as G2, but that is not contradictory, only a difference in specificity. As a practical matter, if Athey's predictor program gives you a 100% G2, you are almost certainly in the G2 subhaplogroup.

    FTDNA is not disagreeing, either. It is only pointing out that your G2 classification is a prediction based on your marker values, not the actual result of an SNP test. As a practical matter, I think you would be unwise to spend money on a deepSNP test right now. Your money would be much better spent ordering more markers. More markers will show you to whom (in the G2 subhaplogroup) you are most closely related, and may even indicate from where your G2 comes.

    Even if your entire extended family is G2, that does not necessarily conflict with a 1% figure for all of Denmark. Denmark has millions of people, so 1% is still tens of thousands.

    Comment


    • #3
      I understand that G and G2 are not contradicting.

      I’m alluring to that the Genographic project puts me in Hg G, with a nice certificate and all, while Athey's predictor puts me 100% in G2. I’m I to understand that this means the Genographic project is doing a bad job at finding your Hg? - and this is despite that the Genographic project will do a SNP (as stated) if your STRs were inconclusive.
      It is hard to believe that if Athey's predictoris is correct (after all 100 %!) why the Genographic project does not place me with the same confidence in that group, under the banner that had they been in doubt, per their own statement, they would do a SNP.

      Basically somebody is not telling they full story.

      I also understand that FTDNA is not in disagreeing either. But again per the Genographic project own statement, had they been in doubt, they already would have done a SNP. So why does FTDNA feel the need for another SNP? and how do they even know that the Genographic project have not already done one?
      Apparently the Genographic project Hg cannot be counted for anymore then a prediction. But why is that?- when their result page specified list that they have already done a SNP if they where in doubt.

      Confused and disappointed, yes I am.

      You are fully right I will not be spending money on a deep SNP test. Cause how could I be more confident that that result would be any more correct then any other?

      Comment


      • #4
        Twthmoses:

        the genographic project and ftdna are basically the same, in the sense that the analysis for the genographic project is done by FTDNA. They guarantee to find the haplogroup, but, as lgmayka was saying, only at a general level, ie, G rather than G2, or R1b rather than R1b1c. There may be more information out there is scientific papers allowing you to understand more about the lineage from the 12 STR markers, but they don't look at that for that price. The statement you cite means that if 12 markers are not enough to put you in one of these general haplogroups, then they do an SNP test. But that doesn't seem to have been your case, as you appear to be G.

        Incidentally, Athey is himself G, so may be that's why he has such a good predictor for haplogroup G!

        lgmayka already pointed out that 1% means many people. Moreover, G is much more common in southern Europe, for instance, it reaches 10% in many regions in Italy. It has certainly been in S Europe for a while, at least since the neolithic migrations from Anatolia, possibly more. From S Europe, there was then plenty of time for some individuals to move north, anytime between then, the Roman empire, and later periods.

        cacio

        Comment


        • #5
          Denmark's Population is small/compact.

          Originally posted by lgmayka
          First, the experts are not disagreeing. Some are classifying you as G, and others are more specifically classifying you as G2, but that is not contradictory, only a difference in specificity. As a practical matter, if Athey's predictor program gives you a 100% G2, you are almost certainly in the G2 subhaplogroup.

          FTDNA is not disagreeing, either. It is only pointing out that your G2 classification is a prediction based on your marker values, not the actual result of an SNP test. As a practical matter, I think you would be unwise to spend money on a deepSNP test right now. Your money would be much better spent ordering more markers. More markers will show you to whom (in the G2 subhaplogroup) you are most closely related, and may even indicate from where your G2 comes.

          Even if your entire extended family is G2, that does not necessarily conflict with a 1% figure for all of Denmark. Denmark has millions of people, so 1% is still tens of thousands.
          Denmark's population is rather small as are most Scandanavian countries,small that is,compared to other larger nations. Denmark stands at 5,432,335-5 million,342 thousand,355 hundred.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Twthmoses
            It is hard to believe that if Athey's predictoris is correct (after all 100 %!) why the Genographic project does not place me with the same confidence in that group, under the banner that had they been in doubt, per their own statement, they would do a SNP.
            The Genographic Project guaranteed to assign you with full confidence to a haplogroup, and they did so: G. They fulfilled their contract to you. The Genographic Project is not willing to guarantee your membership in G2--that is not quite as certain, regardless of what Athey's predictor says.
            Originally posted by Twthmoses
            So why does FTDNA feel the need for another SNP?
            FTDNA is merely offering you a deepSNP test. This test theoretically checks for subgroups like G1a and G2b. As a practical matter, however, these are rather rare, and most customers would do better to order more markers instead. If those additional markers show a pattern associated with G1a or G2b, or if those markers show an unusual pattern we have not seen before, the customer might then wish to order a deepSNP test.
            Originally posted by Twthmoses
            Apparently the Genographic project Hg cannot be counted for anymore then a prediction. But why is that?- when their result page specified list that they have already done a SNP if they where in doubt.
            The Genographic Project did not need to run an SNP test because it is not in doubt as to your haplogroup membership. You are in G.
            Originally posted by Twthmoses
            You are fully right I will not be spending money on a deep SNP test. Cause how could I be more confident that that result would be any more correct then any other?
            DeepSNP tests specifically check your DNA for mutations associated with subhaplogroups. They are reliable for their purpose, and there is rarely any need to doubt their results. But as I say, most customers are better off ordering more markers first. Markers can be used for genealogy, and can often indicate subhaplogroup membership also.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi lgmayka and cacio, thanks for your excellent enlightenments.

              Your Neolithic – Roman migrations north is interesting and got me thinking. Say as small group of G’s migrations north in Europe say I don’t know 5000 years ago. If we say today only 1% in Denmark is G (50.000 people) should they then not be relative closely related?
              The static defiance speaks its own language I think.

              If I look at this http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...xed_columns=on
              Not one of the six G samples for Denmark matches more than a 10/12 fit. Obviously far back related.
              What are the chances that six people settling in Denmark 5000 years ago, all of them in the big game of life end up with relative few descendents, AND 5000 years later you happen to sample one of each of these descendents, not hitting a smack down match. The probability of you accidental getting one of each, in a to begin with small number of G’s, must be minuscule.

              One can imagine that a large (huge) group of G’s settled in Denmark and that most lost out in the big game that would much more likely account for few G’s in Denmark today and them not being remotely related. Of course only one theory in many other.
              Is there any hint or study that G’s only recently came to Denmark (say 400-500 years ago) available?
              Anybody know about haplogroups for such people as Grauballemanden, Tollundmanden, Huldremosekvinden etc.?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lgmayka
                The Genographic Project guaranteed to assign you with full confidence to a haplogroup, and they did so: G. They fulfilled their contract to you.
                I’m not in agreement with that.
                I knew noting about this stuff till I encountered the project. The project kit description says nothing about only categorising you into the nearest biggest group, much less anything about 12 STRs, SNP etc.., in fact the material in the kit unanimously gives the impression that they will track to the furthest possible line / area they possible can.

                Let me quote a few memorial moments from the kit:

                So a map is emerging, but it is a map with much terra incognita. To chart more accurately this formative stage of human history, we need to expand the pool of genetic samples available to science. Only then can we better understand the distribution of genetic markers and complete the task of mapping their accumulated changes.

                Quite a task and sound like an excellent project to participate in. Then why are they doing a half hearted effort by only placing participants into nearest bigger group? Sounds like such a waist and gigantic self imposed missed opportunity.

                We want to be clear – [snip]. Rather, they will indicate the maternal or paternal genetic markers those ancestors bequeathed you thousand of years ago, which charts your remote ancestors’ migratory wanderings and indicate from which branch you hang on the global family tree.

                Sounds promising, then why don’t you actually do it as far as you can?

                The genetic profile you receive is more than a static set of data. It is like an ongoing subscription to your genetic history.

                No it isn’t. It is exactly static data. By only placing into nearest biggest group, you have insured that it is only static data. What can a 12 STR marker with a placement in a “head group”, be used for, other then static data collection?

                This is anthropological genetic database only. Only genetic information that reflects human origins and early movements – a fraction of the human genome – is being extracted for the project. Nevertheless, it will be an unprecedented achievement, the most comprehensive resource for mapping the migration and development of humankind ever assembled.

                I doubt that. Especially seeing that only a limited amount of the data that is available in a sample actually is used for/by the study. Of course I’m fairly sure the data usage from remote indigenous groups is much higher. I would be near shocked if it weren’t. I suspect only paying subjects get the lite version.

                .. Genographic project hopes to address. Did Alexander the Great’s armies leave a genetic trail as they crossed the Hindu Kush? What role did the Silk Road, with its caravans and bazaars, play in dispersing genetic lineages across Eurasia? Can we pinpoint the geographic cradle of the Bantu people and trace their expansion across Africa? Do genetic patterns actually correlate with the Australian Aborigines’ “Songlines” [snip] we will also probe more profound questions; how has human culture [snip] affected genetic diversity.

                Very noble goals and I sure like to know the answers to these. I’m aware that there are vastly more knowledgeable people here on this forum than me, but even with my limited knowledge I’d say not an iceberg in hell chance to succeed, even remotely, using only 12 STR markers, “head groups” and maybe limited used of SNP.

                More genetic markers are waiting to be to be discovered. We only need a more complete worldwide sampling of human DNA.

                Heheh, you got to admit that is a little laughable, considering they only make 12 STR out of the samples they already got.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Twthmoses:

                  I am no statistician so I cannot do the computations, but 5,000 years is a long time for variable STRs - so I don't think that with a founder 5K years away, the probability of no matches out of (only) 6 people is particularly small. I think that for this type of analysis one really needs more markers. With 35 or 67 markers, I believe the situation would be much clearer.

                  I am not aware of any particular study on G in N Europe - and I bet there isn't any given that the haplogroup is relatively rare up there. If the 1% number is correct, then I think one should exclude a 4-500 year old origin for all the danish G. 500 years ago the population of denmark was already large, so we'd have needed an influx of a very large number of G. And I don't think there was any relevant migration in post roman times. Plus, the neighboring countries have little G as well, so we'd have needed a migration straight up from Turkey or Italy. But up until Roman times, I suppose the population was smaller, so even a migration of a relatively small number of people, as you pointed out, could have resulted in a 1% number.

                  cacio

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Twthmoses,

                    To a certain degree you make some valid general points. Those who are project administrators or very involved in genetic genealogy are used to dealing with 67 markers and deep clade SNP tests at FTDNA. This is because they are very interested in what our DNA has to say about their own and mankind's migrations. That's why they didn't stop with the Genographic Project and are customers of FTDNA and other genetic genealogy companies and post on this and other genetic genealogy forums and lists.

                    To be honest, I think most of the people who order a test kit from the Genographic Project are satisfied with the haplogroup prediction (which is right about 98-99% of the time) and have no idea about what the 12 marker results (or more markers) mean individually. As your quote from the Genographic Project below ("Rather, they will indicate the maternal or paternal genetic markers those ancestors bequeathed you thousand of years ago, which charts your remote ancestors’ migratory wanderings and indicate from which branch you hang on the global family tree.") indicates, they have been placed on a branch of the haplogroup tree, but not a twig. If they had promised to place you on a twig, then they would need to do a deep clade SNP test, which is offered by FTDNA.

                    You are right that the Genographic Project is far more interested in the testing they're doing among indigenous people. I am sure that they are going to go over the DNA from indigenous people with a fine tooth comb, because they represent the most distant (in time) parts of the human race. Understanding their yDNA and mtDNA can fill in the blanks that need to be filled in if we are to understand human migrations of long ago. I'll bet that they are going to do a lot of SNP testing and perhaps test more than 12 markers for those subjects. Frankly, to a certain extent having the general public participate by spending $99 for a test kit helps pay for the higher goals of the project and also increases public awareness and interest in what the project is trying to discover. Those who want to know more can progress to FTDNA and other genetic genealogy companies.

                    Are you aware that you can upload your Genographic Project results for free to FTDNA and be part of their database? This means you can see with whom you match and contact them (not possible with the Genographic Project) and also order more markers tested and SNP tests, if you really want to know whether you are G or G2. (Whit Athey's haplogroup predictor is what it says it is - a predictor, not a test on your DNA. Only a SNP test will tell you with certainty what exactly is your haplogroup and subclade.) You can also join projects, whether surname, geographic or haplogroup and learn more about your results from project administrators who generally know something about the subject matter of the project they administer. I would suggest that once you upload your results to FTDNA, if you haven't already, you join the G Haplogroup Project, which is free, and learn more about your haplogroup.

                    The bottom line is that it sounds like you want to know more than the Genographic Project was set up to tell you. There's a remedy for that - upload to FTDNA and take advantage of the projects and tests that will tell you what you want to know.

                    Mike Maddi

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cacio
                      I am no statistician so I cannot do the computations, but 5,000 years is a long time for variable STRs - so I don't think that with a founder 5K years away, the probability of no matches out of (only) 6 people is particularly small. I think that for this type of analysis one really needs more markers. With 35 or 67 markers, I believe the situation would be much clearer.
                      5000 years is a long time, but let me do a little experiment to show how many 6 samples of possible 50.000 really are. I’ll simply scale it up to match the world (using as 5 billion world populations)
                      I’m aware that 50.000 G’s (1% of Denmark’s populations) is subject to circular logic since the 50.000 is based on the very samples I’m about to question. Thus end result changed the initial premises which again change the end result - circular logic.

                      6 samples in a group of 50.000 people is the equal of taking 600.000 samples world wide. Now I have no knowledge of how many samples scientists draw on world wide, but it is probably not too far from this number. Now imagine this; of these entire 600.000 samples taken world wide, not one, not one single of them matches more than 10/12!!
                      Should something like this have happened, we would not even be sitting here today. An anthropology study based on DNA would not exist, at least not as it exists today, as long before all 600.000 samples even would have been taken a unanimously conclusion would be that there is little connection between different DNA after just a few generations. A “out of Africa” theory based on DNA, of a small core/tribe responsible for all humans worldwide, would be pseudo science, little better than say flood geology, physiognomy or hoxsey therapy.
                      The possibility that one should be so unlucky to hit, by chance, the 600.000 most distant descendents in world population defies all statistics.

                      A small G’s pop coming to Denmark, 10.000-5.000-1.000 years ago does not really matter, is no different. First one has to deal with the fact that every male from this group “strikes out” in the game of life, in the sense that they all have few descendents. Second you have to deal with the scenario just described. The chance that you grab six different DNA’s in a rare group and those are not remotely related must be minimal. You are grabbing back at six different ancestors 1000 of years back, in a rare group, and actually hitting different group members. I would count that as very very very unlikely.
                      Think of it this way. In the coming years when hopefully more G Danes pop up, if we don’t start seeing some 12/12 hits, there is no way Danish G’s decent from a small core G group.

                      What I think would be more likely is a large group settled in Denmark, where a good part of them strikes out, consequently leaving a small number but with different DNA. Or even better maybe, a constant influx of small numbers also could do it.

                      Originally posted by cacio
                      I am not aware of any particular study on G in N Europe - and I bet there isn't any given that the haplogroup is relatively rare up there. If the 1% number is correct, then I think one should exclude a 4-500 year old origin for all the danish G. 500 years ago the population of denmark was already large, so we'd have needed an influx of a very large number of G. And I don't think there was any relevant migration in post roman times. Plus, the neighboring countries have little G as well, so we'd have needed a migration straight up from Turkey or Italy. But up until Roman times, I suppose the population was smaller, so even a migration of a relatively small number of people, as you pointed out, could have resulted in a 1% number.
                      There is a whole horde of migration going on in Europe following the fall of the Western Roman Empire for nearly 500 years. I don’t know if it already is so, but should this migration not be factored in as a major source for the disperse of haplogroups throughout Europe?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MMaddi
                        Twthmoses,

                        To be honest, I think most of the people who order a test kit from the Genographic Project are satisfied with the haplogroup prediction (which is right about 98-99% of the time) and have no idea about what the 12 marker results (or more markers) mean individually.
                        You are probably right that they have no idea of the meaning. But it must be purely speculative whether they are satisfied or not with their result. I don’t think such a study has been done

                        See I’m happy with my new TV too, and most people probably are with theirs too. It is first when you actually read the manual and find stuff described there - and that stuff is not in the TV, you get unhappy. Here the point is, it requires you to read the manual.
                        The Genographic “manual” clearly describes something that is not delivered in the end. That is my feeling. There is nothing to hint at that you just purchased a lite version, on the contrary. Everything is describes as the “big” one. Absolutely nowhere is there any hint that you need to purchase extras just to get something workable. Consequently I don’t feel the project has delivered what it promises.

                        The text I get is no better than what I can read on Wiki. In fact I would rate Wiki much more informative than this. The “high resolution” (they actually have the guts of calling 72 DPI for high resolution) certificate and map I get, I can make in actual high resolution (200-300 DPI) in 12 secs in Word or PSP. (ok so not 12 sec, but a couple of min.). The actual result part, the interesting part, the very thing you can’t just get around the corner, is the very lowest one they can make! What kind of landmark study is that?
                        What it is is a normal FTDNA 12 STR marker purchase that is gift warped. Nothing else. Like a Volkswagen dressed up as a Dodge Viper, and naturally a bit disappointing when one finds out that it isn't a Viper.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Twthmoses:

                          I am not sure I follow the logic of scaling up. It makes a big difference whether one is sampling 6 people or 60 or 600. With 6 people there is a lot of randomness, with 600 much less so. but anyway, the right thing to do would be to sit down and do the calculations - which I don't really know how to. In any case, your theory about a slow trickle of G people sounds very plausible, given the spread of G in the south.

                          Incidentally, note that the lack of matches is a rather common situation outside of the main R1 and I European groups. I myself have only 2 10/12 matches in the whole database. The database is heavily skewed towards Western Europe (UK, Skandinavia, Germany), so haplogroups common everywhere else, including southern Europe, are poorly represented.

                          As for the "Barbaric invasions" in the middle age, I know very little about it. We've discussed it a little bit for Italy, which was run by Germanic populations for a long time. The problem is that Germanic populations share the same haplogroups as the rest of Europe (R1 and I), so it's hard to distinguish clearly their impact. Incidentally, was Denmark overrun by other populations? Or was it always inhabited by Germanic ones? It seems to me Denmark was the source of groups that invaded the rest of Europe, rather than viceversa.

                          As for more easterly invaders (like the Huns or the mongols) it is not entirely clear which haplogroups they had, but they likely had other haplogroups. However, there's very little Q or C in Europe, so it is likely that their impact was small.

                          I should also mention that there is a theory that has floated around in this forum about G, that G was brought in by Sarmatians/Alan. The reason being that it is possible that these populations originated in the Caucasus, where G is very frequent. I am very skeptical of this theory, which is certainly false for Italy, where the Alans didn't set foot. However, I mention it just for completeness.

                          cacio

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Twthmoses
                            You are probably right that they have no idea of the meaning. But it must be purely speculative whether they are satisfied or not with their result. I don’t think such a study has been done
                            Well, it's obvious from your postings in this thread that you're not satisfied. But I told you what you can do, if you haven't already. Upload your results, for free, to FTDNA and set up an account there. Then, also for free, join the G Haplogroup Project and learn more about what your results may indicate. If you are inclined to pay some more money, order more tests (more markers or a SNP test or both) to help you learn more about your ancestry.

                            Originally posted by Twthmoses
                            The text I get is no better than what I can read on Wiki. In fact I would rate Wiki much more informative than this. The “high resolution” (they actually have the guts of calling 72 DPI for high resolution) certificate and map I get, I can make in actual high resolution (200-300 DPI) in 12 secs in Word or PSP. (ok so not 12 sec, but a couple of min.). The actual result part, the interesting part, the very thing you can’t just get around the corner, is the very lowest one they can make! What kind of landmark study is that?
                            Is the Genographic Project the last word in scientific knowledge about human migrations? No, it's not. I do have problems with the Genographic Project explanation for how and when R1b1c arrived in western Europe. It makes no sense to me, but then it's the standard explanation that population genetics has for that issue. I think as they gather their results, especially from Central Asia, they will have to revise their understanding of R1b1c and its history and migrations.

                            So, I look at the project as a chance to get it right. In that sense it's a good resource for scientific knowledge and inquisitive individuals to understand their deep ancestry. Those who want to know more than what the Genographic Project can tell them about their results should just take the opportunity to learn that by becoming part of FTDNA's database. One thing to keep in mind is that many geographic projects get a lot of their new members from among those who tested at the Genographic Project and elected to come over to FTDNA and join a project. I can tell you that about 40% of the members of the Sicily Project, of which I'm co-administrator, first tested with the Genographic Project. Once they're in the Sicily Project, I make sure to inform them, to the best of my knowledge, what their results mean and what tests would help them understand more.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here are the possible Scandinavian G's that I know about (apart for commercial testing) :

                              From "Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway":

                              Location 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389I 392 389II
                              West 14 22 15 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 30
                              Central 14 22 15 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 30
                              Central 14 22 15 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 30
                              Central 14 22 15 10 14 15 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              Central 14 22 15 10 14 15 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              West 14 22 15 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              West 14 22 15 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              Oslo 14 22 15 10 12 14 n.t 12 n.t 12 11 29
                              West 15 22 15 10 12 14 n.t 13 n.t 14 11 30
                              Central 14 22 14 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              Central 14 22 15 10 14 15 n.t 13 n.t 13 11 29
                              East 14 22 15 10 15 15 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 30
                              East 14 22 17 10 14 14 n.t 13 n.t 12 11 29
                              East 15 22 15 10 15 15 n.t 12 n.t 12 11 28


                              All of these are predicted rather than confirmed G. They are SNP-tested as something between B and R, but not N3, J, DE, or P(QR). They could be some rare I's, but Athey's predictor program predicts them as G, and there are no nearby I's in Ysearch, that I could find. The sample size was 1766, so roughly 0,8% sampled could be G.


                              "Y-chromosome diversity in Sweden – A long-time perspective" did SNP-test for G. The study found that 1,8% were G's: here are the haplotypes:

                              Location 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389I 392 389II
                              Västerbotten 14 22 15 11 14 14 n.t n.t n.t 12 11 29
                              Värmland 15 22 15 10 15 15 n.t n.t n.t 12 11 29
                              Blekinge/Kristianstad 14 22 15 10 15 16 n.t n.t n.t 13 11 30
                              Österbotten 14 22 15 10 12 15 n.t n.t n.t 13 11 30
                              Västerbotten 14 22 15 11 14 14 n.t n.t n.t 12 11 29
                              Österbotten 14 22 15 10 12 15 n.t n.t n.t 13 11 30
                              Blekinge/Kristianstad 15 22 15 10 15 15 n.t n.t n.t 12 10 28


                              "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" tested 201 Norwegians (Trondheim + Bergen) and 190 Danes + North Germans. The following haplotypes are F but not I,J,K. This means that they almost certainly are G

                              Location 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389I 392 389II
                              Central/West Norway 14 22 15 10 n.t n.t n.t 13 n.t n.t 11 n.t
                              Denmark/North Germany 14 23 15 10 n.t n.t n.t 13 n.t n.t 11 n.t
                              Denmark/North Germany 14 23 15 10 n.t n.t n.t 13 n.t n.t 11 n.t
                              Denmark/North Germany 14 21 15 10 n.t n.t n.t 13 n.t n.t 13 n.t


                              "Regional differences among the Finns: A Y-chromosomal perspective"
                              found that 4 out of 536 Finns could well be G (I don't have the haplotypes).

                              To me it looks like even Norway and Finland has at least some G (despite the fact that neither really have all that much J).

                              The last point I would like to make is that if all of your Great grandparents are Danish that would make you mostly "genetically Danish" (whatever that means), regardless of you ydna haplogroup.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X