Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Age of Haplogroups

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

  • Age of Haplogroups

    Looking over the new Phylogenetic tree, published both at Family Tree DNA & ISOGG, it would be nice if the authors could provide an estimated time BP when a new, branch defining SNP, occurred. For example, R might say something like 26,800 BP +- (whatever the variance is).

    This information is offered for some, but not for all.

    I am puzzled by the suggestion at ISOGG, that the F clade originated 60,000 to 80,000 BP, but then shows F nested under BT, which originated about 55,000 BP. I suspect that someone overlooked this contradiction when inputting the new data.

    Another thing, I am U152+.

    Family Tree DNA says I'm R1b1b2h
    ISOGG says I'm R1b1b2a2g (this takes into account the new SNP S116)

    Since ISOGG includes S116, the nomenclature is probably more accurate, but not reflected by info at either Family Tree DNA or ysearch.org

    I'm interested in the founding dates, per ISOGG, for the following:

    F
    K
    P
    R
    R1
    R1b
    R1b1
    R1b1b
    R1b1b2
    R1b1b2a
    R1b1b2a2
    R1b1b2a2g

    Adding better time & place info to this matrix would help immensely.

    Timothy Peterman

  • #2
    Originally posted by T E Peterman
    Looking over the new Phylogenetic tree, published both at Family Tree DNA & ISOGG, it would be nice if the authors could provide an estimated time BP when a new, branch defining SNP, occurred. For example, R might say something like 26,800 BP +- (whatever the variance is).

    This information is offered for some, but not for all.

    I am puzzled by the suggestion at ISOGG, that the F clade originated 60,000 to 80,000 BP, but then shows F nested under BT, which originated about 55,000 BP. I suspect that someone overlooked this contradiction when inputting the new data.

    Another thing, I am U152+.

    Family Tree DNA says I'm R1b1b2h
    ISOGG says I'm R1b1b2a2g (this takes into account the new SNP S116)

    Since ISOGG includes S116, the nomenclature is probably more accurate, but not reflected by info at either Family Tree DNA or ysearch.org

    I'm interested in the founding dates, per ISOGG, for the following:

    F
    K
    P
    R
    R1
    R1b
    R1b1
    R1b1b
    R1b1b2
    R1b1b2a
    R1b1b2a2
    R1b1b2a2g

    Adding better time & place info to this matrix would help immensely.

    Timothy Peterman
    This link may help. This is the best information I know of as of today.

    http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/page/3#8

    Comment


    • #3
      The link is helpful. It doesn't provide them all, but it gives a better framework than what I found at either ISOGG or wikipedia.

      I notice that some of these clades are considerably older & some younger than previously estimated.

      The earlier date for CF is almost right in line with what Stephen Oppenheimer & others predicted from mtDNA.

      I wonder, nonethless, when BT lived, and also when AT (the MRCA of all males) lived.

      Timothy Peterman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T E Peterman
        The link is helpful. It doesn't provide them all, but it gives a better framework than what I found at either ISOGG or wikipedia.

        I notice that some of these clades are considerably older & some younger than previously estimated.

        The earlier date for CF is almost right in line with what Stephen Oppenheimer & others predicted from mtDNA.

        I wonder, nonethless, when BT lived, and also when AT (the MRCA of all males) lived.

        Timothy Peterman
        This is another thread from Rootsweb that talks some about the clades in R1

        http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-05/1210350327

        We have a much better idea of these dates in the past than we did 2 years ago. It is an on going process.

        Comment

        Working...
        X