DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-01 > 1201702649


From: "David Wilson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] FTDNA Panel 4 Stability
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:17:29 -0800
References: <479C2931.7030006@melbpc.org.au><000101c861ca$c98d0710$6402a8c0@DW1><479EC993.7030508@melbpc.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <479EC993.7030508@melbpc.org.au>


Yes, that's correct. But to go even further, most R1b1c people with those
three values will be R1b1c7. I have found a few people who have 413a=21 and
481=25 who are NOT R1b1c7, but they appear to belong to what I call the
Pre-M222 group -- that is, they belong to a cluster in R1b1c within which
R1b1c7 later emerged.

As a practical matter, most people with 413a=21 and 481=25 will also have
most of the R1b1c7 indicator values in the first 37 markers as well.

I need to study the situation with 534 a little more. 534 seems to be a
faster mutator than some of the other markers in the 38-67 bunch, but it
does not have a lot of variance in R1b1c7.

David Wilson

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of J. David Grierson
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] FTDNA Panel 4 Stability

David,
Thanks for this. Turning around your proposition, what I think you are
saying is that if a significant number of people in a name have:

413a = 21 instead of 23
534 = 16 instead of 15
481 = 25 instead of 22
and (with the exception of DYS444) otherwise appear mainstream R1b, then -
particularly given that one of them is SNP tested M222+ - they are very
likely R1b1c7.
Regards
David Grierson




David Wilson wrote:

>Weighing in late on this discussion. Sorry.
>
>Markers 38-67 interest me a lot. With only three exceptions, the R1b1c7
>modal values for these markers are the same as for mainstream R1b. The
>differences are these:
>
>413a = 21 instead of 23
>534 = 16 instead of 15
>481 = 25 instead of 22
>
>These last 30 markers are in general slow moving markers, which means
>we should expect to see little variance in any relatively young
>population. But as we know, mutations do happen. If two individuals
>share a non-modal value in one of the latter markers but do not share
>other non-modal markers elsewhere in the haplotype, one should think of
>IBS rather than IBD (identity by state, identity by descent). In short,
>we would be dealing with coincidence or convergent evolution.
>
>As to the question about MRCA, I have seen a genetic distance of 6
>manifest itself in as little as 350 to 400 years -- 10 to 12
>generations. If that seems like fast evolution, remember that half of
>them could occur in one line and the others in the other line, so
>you're actually talking about a total travel distance of 20 or more
generations.
>
>Just a first quick response. I'll try to have further ideas later.
>
>David W.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>[mailto:] On Behalf Of J. David Grierson
>Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:48 PM
>To: DNA R1b1c7
>Subject: [DNA-R1B1C7] FTDNA Panel 4 Stability
>
>These questions are for David Wilson, but I think they are of general
>interest, and I would value comment from anybody.
>
>I have a number of what I identify as "Celtic" Grier(son)/Greers with
>the Panel 4 (ie loci 38-67) results almost identical to the R1b1c7
>modal from YSearch. The only difference is in DYS444, which in ALL
>members of the Grier(son)Greer project is 13, a very rare result.
>Indeed, there appears to be only one other R1b1c7 member (16616 Conroy)
>with this score. As it happens, he also has DYS442 at 13, as I do,
>another extremely rare count; however, in spite of these pairings, we
>otherwise have a GD of 15, so our joint ancestry must actually go back
>to near the beginnings of M222+, and I think this is a very good example of
convergence in the midst of divergence.
>Now, the aforementioned Greers with Panel 4 results that match the
>modal
>(DYS444 excluded) have been assessed by the FTDNA algorithm(s) as R1b
>in all cases.
>
>My first question, then, is:
>Are the DYS values at the loci covered by FTDNA Panel 4 so stable that
>they likely predate M222+, or does the exact (or almost exact) match
>with the
>R1b1c7 modal - and a very large number of R1b1c7 members - belie the
>FTDNA statement "Please note that for any predicted results we see no
>reason for ordering a SNP test to confirm the Haplogroup", and and also
>enable us to confidently predict R1b1c7 for these individuals, given
>that they exactly match me in almost all cases, and I am SNP M222+?
>
>Second question:
>Given that every member of this name-group tested at DYS444 has an
>identical, but rare, allele count, but that also there is an internal
>GD of up to 6 or more between the individuals, how far away is the
>MRCA, assuming that somehow or other DYS444=13 is a family identifier?
>
>I am fascinated by the notion that, given the internal GD which I think
>is likely to take our combined MRCA back to well before the surname
>era, somehow all these families chose a varient of the same name,
>despite doubtless by the beginnings of surnames being well separated in
>location. It suggests that there was some kind of family identifier
>passed on through the generations.
>
>David, I will send you my spreadsheet in case my questions need
elaboration.
>David Grierson in Melbourne
>
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: