Jerry and Marlene, I would like to hear Earl Beaty's comments on the possible relationship between L1, L3, L2B, L2D, and L2F. I would like to also include L2E David Beaty, who has a descendant who has been tested to 37 markers, and I thought was going to be upgraded to 67 markers, but haven't seen any results yet. This L2E donor, ID56 is an exact match with L2F ID55, who is my brother. I'm going to copy Earl on this and hope to encourage him to get in on our musings with his more experienced input. Paper trail-wise, we have not been able to find any connection of any L2 subgroup with L1 or L3, but DNA seems to indicate a connection. Willie ----- Original Message ----- From: "JERRY SCOTT" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 3:35 PM Subject: [BP2000] DNA TESTING > Marlene and Willie, I ask my cousin Jerry Baker to look at ID 31 and > this is his email and > wanted to share this with the group. > > Jerry Scott > L2D > > Jerry S., > > I have reviewed Tables I, II, III, & IV for the Beatty/Beaty DNA Project > relative to ID #31 and L2B, L2D, & L2F. Looks like there are 115 Beaty > testers. > > Table I > I could not tell much from looking at Table I but it did have a link to > some information on the lineages for L2B, L2D, & L2F. Your Beaty must be > represented in L2D, since you are listed as a contact for that lineage and > it includes a bunch of Scott names. > > Table II (Group A is R1b1c) > Your questions relate to Group A. It appears that three tester IDs 19, > 65, & 75 are listed for 2B; only ID 31 for 2D and only 55 for 2F. ID 75 > only has 25 markers. As obvious from the tables, Lineage 2B is 4 markers > off from the standard with 2 of them being fast moving markers. Lineage > 2F is 3 markers off from the standard with 2 of them being fast moving > markers. > > Table III > This table is interesting, but does not tell you much. It shows how much > each of the Groups varies from the other groups. The closest potential > connection between the various groups is Group A (R1b1c) and Group P (ID > 68 - R1b - Line 379) which has 5 markers off from each other (two of which > are fast moving markers). It is listed in the Table as 4 markers off, > probably because 2 of the 5 differences are fast moving markers. Group P > has only 25 markers completed. > > Table IV > It appears that Table IV has an error. Table IV lists ID 31 line as 2C > while Tables I & II list ID 31 line as 2D. I believe the 2C is in error > and should read 2D, since your Beatys are represented in Lineage 2D. > IDs 19 (2B), 31 (2D), & 55 (2F) each have 67 markers. ID 65 has 37 > markers and ID 75 has 25 markers. > > Two new marker differences from the R1b standard show up at markers 51 & > 60 for IDs 31 (2D) , 55 (2F) , & 19 (2B), but all three IDs have these > differences, thus all three IDs show no differences in markers 38 thru 67 > when compared to the R1b standard and the Adam (Group A) standard. > > Conclusions: > > I would guess that ID numbers 19, 31, & 55 have very high percentages for > their common most distant ancestors being in a recent period of time. I > would recommending asking IDs 65 & 75 to expand their tests to 67 markers > to add to the data baseline. > > Also, I would recommend asking ID #68 (Group P - Lineage 379) to expand > from 25 markers to 67 markers and would research lineage 379 for a > connection (unless I am missing something about this close 4 markers off > comparison). > > > > I am only an amateur at DNA. If you have a specific question I might be > able to help get the answer by asking others, but I do not know very much > about DNA on my own. > > Jerry Baker > > When replying to a digest message, quote only the specific message to > which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. > Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides > with the message subject to which you are replying. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Sorry to be so slow about responding. I have been busy with other things. I wrote up a full analysis for Genmatch when we last received data. I need to start off by noting that I know next to nothing about L-2 genealogy. I have not looked at the records, and can only pass on what people tell me. The division of L-2 into 6 groups with letters is something which others have done. Of 15 members of L-2 who have been tested, 4 are not even in the R1b haplogroup, and good progress has been made in identifying when the NPE occurred for Family Group H. The other 11 are definitely in Group A, descendants of Adam. They, along with our representatives of L-1 and L-3 are also descendants of Charlton. That makes them genetically close and it will be difficult to use genetic testing to determine the fine details. We have two testees from L-3 and they are identical with two mutations which distinguish them from other descendants of Charlton. We don't know when these mutations occurred and they may not be representive of all of L-3. The one representative of L-1 has a mutation at DYS444 which distinguishes it from both L-2 and L-3. It is not a good idea to base important conclusions on the presence or absence of any single mutation. The concern is that the change might be very recent and not representative of a large group. Another concern is conclusions based on things happening at the two CDY markers. The best information now is that a mutation occurs at one of these at a rate of once in 28 generations. That is often enough to worry that any ancestral line might have two mutations, possibly in opposite directions. I think it prudent to examine how the ancestry is looking with those two ignored, then see how their presence modifies the conclusion. Even if one doesn't totally believe them, they can be good guides to where to look next. I recommend that the L-2 people pool their wisdom and create a descendancy chart for Charlton. I suggest taking Table IIc and deleting all the records except L-1, L-2, and L-3, and seeing what can be concluded about how that data fits into the chart. If that turns out to look reasonable it would be interesting to add in the rest of the Charlton Group. I think I wrote up for Genmatch an outline of how this chart would go. The genealogical information available to me suggests that Charlton probably lived in Ireland. L-2 probably had a common ancestor more recent than Charlton. --Earl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willie R. Beaty" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Earl Beaty" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [BP2000] DNA TESTING > Jerry and Marlene, > > I would like to hear Earl Beaty's comments on the possible relationship > between L1, L3, L2B, L2D, and L2F. I would like to also include L2E David > Beaty, who has a descendant who has been tested to 37 markers, and I thought > was going to be upgraded to 67 markers, but haven't seen any results yet. > This L2E donor, ID56 is an exact match with L2F ID55, who is my brother. > > I'm going to copy Earl on this and hope to encourage him to get in on our > musings with his more experienced input. > > Paper trail-wise, we have not been able to find any connection of any L2 > subgroup with L1 or L3, but DNA seems to indicate a connection. > > Willie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JERRY SCOTT" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 3:35 PM > Subject: [BP2000] DNA TESTING > > > > Marlene and Willie, I ask my cousin Jerry Baker to look at ID 31 and > > this is his email and > > wanted to share this with the group. > > > > Jerry Scott > > L2D > > > > Jerry S., > > > > I have reviewed Tables I, II, III, & IV for the Beatty/Beaty DNA Project > > relative to ID #31 and L2B, L2D, & L2F. Looks like there are 115 Beaty > > testers. > > > > Table I > > I could not tell much from looking at Table I but it did have a link to > > some information on the lineages for L2B, L2D, & L2F. Your Beaty must be > > represented in L2D, since you are listed as a contact for that lineage and > > it includes a bunch of Scott names. > > > > Table II (Group A is R1b1c) > > Your questions relate to Group A. It appears that three tester IDs 19, > > 65, & 75 are listed for 2B; only ID 31 for 2D and only 55 for 2F. ID 75 > > only has 25 markers. As obvious from the tables, Lineage 2B is 4 markers > > off from the standard with 2 of them being fast moving markers. Lineage > > 2F is 3 markers off from the standard with 2 of them being fast moving > > markers. > > > > Table III > > This table is interesting, but does not tell you much. It shows how much > > each of the Groups varies from the other groups. The closest potential > > connection between the various groups is Group A (R1b1c) and Group P (ID > > 68 - R1b - Line 379) which has 5 markers off from each other (two of which > > are fast moving markers). It is listed in the Table as 4 markers off, > > probably because 2 of the 5 differences are fast moving markers. Group P > > has only 25 markers completed. > > > > Table IV > > It appears that Table IV has an error. Table IV lists ID 31 line as 2C > > while Tables I & II list ID 31 line as 2D. I believe the 2C is in error > > and should read 2D, since your Beatys are represented in Lineage 2D. > > IDs 19 (2B), 31 (2D), & 55 (2F) each have 67 markers. ID 65 has 37 > > markers and ID 75 has 25 markers. > > > > Two new marker differences from the R1b standard show up at markers 51 & > > 60 for IDs 31 (2D) , 55 (2F) , & 19 (2B), but all three IDs have these > > differences, thus all three IDs show no differences in markers 38 thru 67 > > when compared to the R1b standard and the Adam (Group A) standard. > > > > Conclusions: > > > > I would guess that ID numbers 19, 31, & 55 have very high percentages for > > their common most distant ancestors being in a recent period of time. I > > would recommending asking IDs 65 & 75 to expand their tests to 67 markers > > to add to the data baseline. > > > > Also, I would recommend asking ID #68 (Group P - Lineage 379) to expand > > from 25 markers to 67 markers and would research lineage 379 for a > > connection (unless I am missing something about this close 4 markers off > > comparison). > > > > > > > > I am only an amateur at DNA. If you have a specific question I might be > > able to help get the answer by asking others, but I do not know very much > > about DNA on my own. > > > > Jerry Baker > > > > When replying to a digest message, quote only the specific message to > > which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. > > Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides > > with the message subject to which you are replying. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > >