DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-01 > 1201427904


From: "J. David Grierson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] FTDNA Panel 4 Stability
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:58:24 +1100
References: <479C2931.7030006@melbpc.org.au> <479C2D4B.7060506@ibssg.org>
In-Reply-To: <479C2D4B.7060506@ibssg.org>


Jeff,
Thanks for your prompt response. In determining mutations per
generation, I am partly influenced by the fact that I am identical (at
37 anyway) with my Great Grandfather, ie three generations (and I
strongly suspect that will be true at 67). So can we fit 6,7 or 8
mutations into the approximately 28 generations since the name Grierson
was first recorded? If so, your argument holds. If not, I am back to my
ultimate statement.

I would like your opinion on the first question - if you have one -
which is, if Panel 4 = R1b1c7 modal, does that make the candidate a
member of that sub-clade?.

No, I haven't yet looked globally for DYS444=13, DYS442=13, not least
because I'm not sure how to do this without much labour!! But I will.
Regards
David

wrote:

>I would suggest that coincidence aside, that the results that clearly
>identify by a very similar surname, can not predate the use of surnames,
>otherwise this surname grouping would not occur.
>
>Even though the trait in genetics may go much further back than the
>surnames do, the focused group must be post-surname usage, and thus
>have a common point of divergence in surname usage at or after the use
>of surnames came into convention for that family.
>
>Have you looked globally for others with matches, that have the common
>trait you are looking at,
>
>DYS444? Outside the 'official' R1B1c7 group?
>
>

This thread: