uN1 rolled into I1d-N, in I1 Project Results Table

[s trangsrud]

Just an announcement to preempt some questions.

It was brought to our attention that half of the Chism/Chisholm results have landed in the uN1 subclade, with the other half in the N subclade. Their results were basically the same, except for the 14,15 vs 14,14, for DYS385a.b.

The two subclades' modal haplotypes have no other marker where they differ. There is no way to tell if a specific 14,15 mutation happened 30 years ago, or 3000 years ago. I asked the other project admins if they would object to combining the subclades. Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

It might be interesting throwing I1-N and I1-uN1 together and seeing if any
new sub-dividing principle shows up with the combined dataset. It may or
may not.

In my database I have about 250 I1-N and 125 I2-uN1 --- or two to one ratio.
If we divided up the Chandler rate for 385a and assumed 1.5 / 1000 of it was
"up" rate, then in 140 generations we roughly expect fraction of 1/5 to
mutate. So there is some hint that uN1 is more than just random mutations
on I1-N. But other than 385 it is hard to see any differences of substance.

I looked at my I1-ASgeneric and compared the count of 13-14 to 14-14 at 385.
The ratio is 3 to 1

But I1-N has two chances of mutating 14-14 to 14-15 versus just a single
chance of 13-14 mutating to 14-14.

If we assume the two are of about the same age, then it is plausible that
most of the uN1 are just I1-N that mutated at 385.

So go ahead, combine them if it makes life easier for the project. In the
meantime I will combine my populations in a playground excel file and see if
they show anything new in overall structure.
Ken

Kittler results for those in I1d-uN1 have been both high,low and low,high, (15,14 & 14,15), so at least 2 different mutational events. (No doubt many more.)

Steve

[Ritch]

I1d's

There are those distinct differences that split the groups into uN or N subgroups. When looking at different results whether it be Nordtvedt's or anyone else's tables, there is an overall pattern that does split the groups. Obviously there are some transitional groups...maybe the Chisholms fall into this place.

I would like to see the subgroups defined more strongly, but I can understand that this is an enormous undertaking and doing every subgroup would add a great deal of complexity to the tables.

Just some thoughts on the thread...

[s trangsrud]

There is no uN branch connecting all the various subclades with 'uN' titles. They are just sub-branches of L22/Norse. They could have just as easily been named N1, N2, N3, etc...