DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228414451


From: "R. C. Mac Donald" <>
Subject: [R-M222] (no subject)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:14:11 -0500


Hi, Sandy.

Sorry I wasn't clearer on my point about the 10% figure; I'm an abysmally
slow typist, so I tend toward the cryptic in my writing sometimes.

What I meant was that the green subgroup includes, but is not limited to,
the R1b1c7 haplogroup. From the information given for those subgroup
members who've given a Ysearch ID number, it looks like only a handful (I
counted eight last time I checked) of the 60 are identified as R1b1 ...
(whatever the new name is for old R1b1c7), and there's no way to tell how
many of these have been confirmed as M222+, and how many are reporting their
haplogroup based on an estimate; in the latter case I think it matters how
long ago this estimate was done, since the greater number of samples now
available may have shifted some modal values for the haplogroup to the point
that what may have looked like a candidate for inclusion three or four years
ago no longer does. I have no evidence to suggest this is the case with any
of the members in the subgroup, I'm just naturally hesitant to make
assumptions when I'm aware, as I am on this topic, how far my ignorance
outstrips my knowledge.

This thread: