Does a Y-DNA Viking + Hg I1 (M253) AS generic individual have a distinguishing SNP which would create a seperate subhaplotype of (M253) for such people ? Patrick Holland.

Ken, As in my footnote in the original message: for the continuous assumption, the distribution of the alleles (or repeat values) at any given generation would be a Gaussian. But for the discrete assumption, the distribution of the STR alleles at any given generation would involve a modified Bessel function. The two distributions do approximate each other, but they are otherwise different allele distributions. In your method, you require some estimate of the variance of that theoretical allele distribution, and the way you are computing that is by assuming that variance is the same as the variance of the alleles (or repeat values) that you happen to see in the surviving population. That is the problem. The variance you see in the surviving population is tainted by the population history, and especially so since many male lines go extinct, and only a few initial male lines get to survive. The Walsh approach is less affected by details of the surviving population. The method also gives the probability distribution for the TMRCA - so one can put say a 95% confidence interval on the TMRCA estimate. But to do that one needs to assume perfect confidence in the STR mutation rates, and the mutation process, which I don't think we can assume or know just yet. Terry

There is a good method for calculating TMRCA that is not tripped up by population history, nor does it make any "continuum" assumption about the mutation process. Walsh describes the starting point for the method in the Stepwise Mutation Model section in his paper published in "Genetics 158: 897–912 (June 2001)". Contrast that method with other methods for computing TMRCA. The Average-Squared-Distance (ASD), "Variance" method, and variations on that method for computing the TMRCA, explicitly do a sum over the sample population - and simulations show that that reliance on the surviving population will lead to a gross underestimate of the true TMRCA. Part of the reason is to do with sons being born with a Poisson distribution (that is, there is a certain probability of a man having 0 sons, another probability for him to have 1 son, and a different probability for him to have 2 sons etc, with the probabilities drawn from a Poisson distribution). That process means that the vast majority of male lines will necessarily go extinct. But correspondingly, a small number of initial male lines will still survive and dominate. That is a feature of the Galton–Watson process, which is best known in the context of surname extinction, where in the long run all hereditary surnames will in theory go extinct except for a small number of surviving surnames. (It is happening with English hereditary surnames, and particularly so with Vietnamese hereditary surnames.) That is the first problem with any ASD or Variance based method for computing the TMRCA. It is tripped up by population history, and the chance survival of some lines over other lines that go extinct. A second problem with any ASD or Variance based method, is that those and related methods implicitly assume that an STR allele value (with example allele values being say DYS393=13 or DYS393=14) is a "continuous" variable, where in reality STR alleles can only ever have discrete integer values. For fast mutating markers, and over a long time frame, that assumption wouldn't make too much difference, but for a slow mutating marker or for a short time frame it makes a big difference. Some published papers only applied such methods to problems where the TMRCA was very big (and the "continuous" allele assumption was not such an issue), alternatively they restricted themselves to only fast mutating markers. Those published papers still had the problem of population history to handle though. I do note that Ken may have slightly mitigated the negative effect of the "continuum" assumption by replacing all STR mutation rates with just the average rate in his method. That would have the effect of down-weighting the contribution of the slow mutating markers. That is a loss of useful information, but the average rate may have the side effect of reducing somewhat the bigger problem of the "continuum" assumption when applied to a relatively young haplogroup such as I1. Nevertheless, Ken's TMRCA estimate for I1 is still way off compared to the method that both correctly factors in the discrete integer nature of STR allele values, and is mostly insensitive to population history. For me, the focus is really on the quality of the STR mutation rates we need to use to compute the TMRCA. I have been happy enough to use the Chandler rates for the first 37 markers, but the rates out to 67 markers I am not so certain about. Then there is the recent paper by Burgarella, which gives some new STR mutation rates (with confidence intervals) for 110 markers. Both I and Ken, have used the same mutation rates as input into our respective methods - although as mentioned, Ken uses a single average rate applied to all STR markers. In the Walsh formulation, which also computes the probability distribution of the TMRCA, each STR marker gets to use it's own mutation rate, whether it be fast or slow. Getting quality STR mutation rates out to 110 markers will be important. Finally, I should say that there will always be a high margin of error when computing the TMRCA using a limited number of STR markers with a non-perfect understanding of the mutation process for any given marker. Assumptions are everything. But using the nice (and wrong) uniform population history assumption, and the continuum assumption for STR allele values, are two assumptions that we don't need to make. Terry Footnote: For the physicists. If you were to think of the evolving STR allele values as the random drifting of a particle (Brownian motion or whatever), then under the "continuum" assumption, such a particle will move via diffusion to a position that has an expectation distance from the starting point that is proportional to the square-root of the time that has elapsed. Or squaring things, you could say that the average squared distance from the starting point is proportional to time. And the distribution of the final positions is a Gaussian. But that is under the "continuum" assumption, where the particle can make arbitrarily small steps. Under the "discrete" assumption, where a particle is on lattice and only has the option of staying at a lattice point or jumping a discrete integer amount to a new lattice point, then the (stochastic) formula for that motion is different. It is well-known for Brownian motion on a lattice, that the distribution of the final positions involves a modified Bessel function. For the Y-chromosome, the changing STR allele values over time, are similar to the "discrete" assumption above. The "continuum" assumption is only an approximation to that, which may not always be applicable.

I don’t see anyone from P78+ haplogroup downstream of M223+ who did or has ordered the L623 or L147 tests? Someone should. If you are P78+ and received or ordered either of the last two snps, please let us know? Ken

ChrY:13357186 A to C (=M170) actually tells us that this cell line DNA is rather haplogroup I than J. I'll go through my records. Maybe I can find at least some STR results for this sample. -- Gene Prescott Greenville, NC C. Eugene Prescott, CPA web/blogsite: http://taxtechcpa.blogspot.com/ There is always something new!

"The Genographic Project has been going on for 6 years now, and it seems like some interesting results are going to come out soon. CeCe Moore was at the FTDNA conference, and relayed the following interesting (to me) reports from Spencer Wells . . . " http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/11/some-sneak-previews-of-the-genographic-project/

-----Original Message----- From: Terry In your method, you require some estimate of the variance of that theoretical allele distribution, and the way you are computing that is by assuming that variance is the same as the variance of the alleles (or repeat values) that you happen to see in the surviving population. [[You apparently don't understand what is done. The variance of the allele distribution is not assumed or used for purposes of the tmrca estimate; that estimate comes from the observed haplotype differences in hand. You would do better asking what I do, rather than inventing your false notion of what is done. The theoretical allele distribution plays no part in the tmrca estimate. It only plays a part in determining the sigma or confidence interval associated with a tmrca estimate. Given the tree leading to the sample of haplotypes, what would be the distribution of variance outcomes if nature had had the opportunity to throw its str mutations into that tree many times? Our sample haplotypes are nature's ONE example of doing this; so the variance nature gives us in this single case is one realization from that theoretical distribution --- all the theoretical distribution can tell us is the statistical range of typical error "off the mark". KN ]] That is the problem. The variance you see in the surviving population is tainted by the population history, and especially so since many male lines go extinct, and only a few initial male lines get to survive. [[ What happens on branch lines that went extinct, or on branch line segments that do not lead to the sample population of haplotypes is all irrelevant to estimating the age of the pruned tree which leads to the sample of haplotypes. What actually happened which led to the sample of haplotypes had to happen on the branch segments which lead to the sample of haplotypes --- no where else. KN]] [[The detailed demographics of the tree will affect the expected value of the coalescence age estimate, but not the interclade node estimate. This has been stressed for years, and that's why one must call coalescence age an estimate of an abstraction rather than a specific historical event.]] The Walsh approach is less affected by details of the surviving population. The method also gives the probability distribution for the TMRCA - so one can put say a 95% confidence interval on the TMRCA estimate. But to do that one needs to assume perfect confidence in the STR mutation rates, and the mutation process, which I don't think we can assume or know just yet. [[ And what in a formula nutshell is this "Walsh approach"? I bet you it is one of the variance or GD methods some of us use all the time. The only thing I did not include above is the tmrca estimate using variance from assumed founding haplotype. But that is not recommended for the obvious reason; we have to infer the founding haplotype which can be subject to error. Yes; as the age estimates go deeper into the past, the true nature of the mutation rules become increasingly important, especially for the fast strs which could very well mutate more than once on any branch line of descent in the tree under consideration. This also has been discussed for some time. ]] Terry ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Here's what Ken says about the new discoveries. -- Aaron From: Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> According to 1000 Genomes, these snps are all upstream sufficiently that they include all of L22, probably all of I1 in many cases, and all of haplogroup I in some cases.   Remember, these snps are apparently from brand new regions of the Y in the WTY coverage.   L841 to L848 were originally found in an L338+ private WTY according to Dr Krahn   So if they come into the catalog, people should be very careful in deciding to spend money on testing them.   From: Yme Drost Subject: new SNP's in haplogroup I1d1 P109+   WTY news! In the WTY project they discovered nine new SNP’s in the I1d1 haplogroup (P109+): L840 ChrY 19294091 19294091 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L841 ChrY 12581004 12581004 T to A; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L842 ChrY 14902101 14902101 G to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L843 ChrY 21712678 21712678 A to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L844 ChrY 2944029 2944029 T to C; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L845 ChrY 7712844 7712844 T to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L846 ChrY 7916500 7916500 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L847 ChrY 21563422 21563422 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L848 ChrY 21711505 21711505 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant The new SNP’s are discovered in kit# 159230 from William Matthew Thornton (England) . Yme Drost

Just wanted to pass this along to the list. -- Aaron --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Yme Drost <y.drost@home.nl> wrote: WTY news!In the WTY project they discovered nine new SNP’s in the I1d1 haplogroup (P109+):L840 ChrY 19294091 19294091 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participantL841 ChrY 12581004 12581004 T to A; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L842 ChrY 14902101 14902101 G to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L843 ChrY 21712678 21712678 A to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participantL844 ChrY 2944029 2944029 T to C; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L845 ChrY 7712844 7712844 T to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L846 ChrY 7916500 7916500 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L847 ChrY 21563422 21563422 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L848 ChrY 21711505 21711505 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participantThe new SNP’s are discovered in kit# 159230 from William Matthew Thornton (England) .Yme Drost

When we are talking TMRCA are we talking in terms of genealogy? Or are we talking in terms of clades and sub clades etc going back many millennium or tens of millennium? The reason I ask is because although Anatole Klyosov's method has been repeatedly criticised no one as yet has proven it incorrect in terms of genealogy. I still use the method and it works for me down to a point where I am comfortable that the analysis resulting from his methodology pretty well follows what we know of history of certain family groups down to about 1000AD. I have even read on other forums that it is believed that the methodology is quite sound for the last two millennium. And that was written by one of his chief protagonists on this forum. Why don't we have a TMRCA challenge? We have an extremely well known family group being Clan Donald. They have exhaustive and verifiable genealogies going down to about 1350AD. We know who their common ancestor was and we know exactly when he lived and we know that their family group has three main branches and we even know with reasonable certainty the CA date of the common ancestor date of each of the main branches. So get out your TMRCA calcs and show the methodology and working out and give us some dates using all these TMRCA methodologies. Lets see who is near and who is far. Andrew ________________________________ From: Terry <tdrobb@gmail.com> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com; y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 12:40 PM Subject: [DNA] TMRCA Calculations There is a good method for calculating TMRCA that is not tripped up by population history, nor does it make any "continuum" assumption about the mutation process. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-----Original Message----- From: Terry I do note that Ken may have slightly mitigated the negative effect of the "continuum" assumption by replacing all STR mutation rates with just the average rate in his method. [[ I don't think you understand what you are talking about, especially about what "Ken" does. He explicitly does NOT use average rates. He uses best understood individual rates for each STR which in the interclade variance summation over STRs is important for the proper weighting. Some text book treatments end up simply summing STR variances and then dividing by total mutation rate of all markers. That's all right for genealogical era time estimates, but it overweights fast STRs as one is estimating things further back in time.]] That would have the effect of down-weighting the contribution of the slow mutating markers. [[On the contrary, if you examine the weightings in Generations6, for example, you will see it is the fast STRs which are downweighted. KN ]] That is a loss of useful information, but the average rate may have the side effect of reducing somewhat the bigger problem of the "continuum" assumption when applied to a relatively young haplogroup such as I1. Nevertheless, Ken's TMRCA estimate for I1 is still way off compared to the method that both correctly factors in the discrete integer nature of STR allele values, [[ This last comment is especially bizarre. All the algebra or statistics or math that goes into the variance methods is for discrete integer repeat variables, not continuous variables. Where do you come up with this stuff? KN ]]

If I am understanding this correctly, and based on a previous posts, L841-L848 were previously identified in a private WTY participant who was P338+. L840, however, was not previously identified in this P338+ individual. But the 1000 Genomes data suggests that L840 is also upstream from L22. So essentially none of these "new" SNPs (i.e., L841 - L848 for sure) will be of any value in further dissecting L22+ and/or P109+ folks, but is it still to early to tell if L840 will be of any surgical value?

Are we premature on the basis of 4 test results in putting L272+ upstream equivalent to L38+ for the entire latter haplogroup? I’m thinking especially of the Scot clade of L38+ It is quite unique and I can not see anyone of this clade tested for L272? A number of subhaplogroups of I have ended up having clades within or closely associated which were very early in the British Isles. Ken

From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:14 PM To: y.drost@home.nl ; 'Steve Trangsrud' ; 'Aaron Hill' ; 'Phil Goff' Subject: Re: new SNP's in haplogroup I1d1 P109+ According to 1000 Genomes, these snps are all upstream sufficiently that they include all of L22, probably all of I1 in many cases, and all of haplogroup I in some cases. Remember, these snps are apparently from brand new regions of the Y in the WTY coverage. For example; check the next earlier I1 WTY person’s results: he has no coverage for any of these snps. So we can not say anything about these snp locations from public WTY data. L841 to L848 were originally found in an L338+ private WTY according to Dr Krahn So if they come into the catalog, people should be very careful in deciding to spend money on testing them. From: Yme Drost Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:45 PM To: 'Steve Trangsrud' ; 'Kenneth Nordtvedt' ; 'Aaron Hill' ; 'Phil Goff' Subject: new SNP's in haplogroup I1d1 P109+ WTY news! In the WTY project they discovered nine new SNP’s in the I1d1 haplogroup (P109+): L840 ChrY 19294091 19294091 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L841 ChrY 12581004 12581004 T to A; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L842 ChrY 14902101 14902101 G to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L843 ChrY 21712678 21712678 A to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L844 ChrY 2944029 2944029 T to C; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L845 ChrY 7712844 7712844 T to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L846 ChrY 7916500 7916500 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L847 ChrY 21563422 21563422 C to T; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant L848 ChrY 21711505 21711505 C to G; Found in a hg I-P109 WTY participant The new SNP’s are discovered in kit# 159230 from William Matthew Thornton (England) . Yme Drost

Ken Could it be of any value for any of the old I2* people testing any of these three older timeline SNPs Bob I2*, ISOGG new I2b, I2c DNA Project Tyler Family DNA Project Genealogy Sunshine Coast ISOGG Papers/Presentations Cited A Fair Deal for Members of the Dafence and Ex Service Community Resgstore the Parity with CENTRELINK and other DVA Pensions that the ALP Govt stole from Disabled Veterans's Disability Payment The march to CANBERRA has begun. Will YOU join us? -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:13 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L841-L848 Many thanks. This could save lots of redundant tests. Ken -----Original Message----- From: G. Magoon Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 4:32 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] L841-L848 Here's my analysis of L841-L848 based on 1000 Genomes Project data: L841: build 37 position 14071004; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L841+; I2 seems to be L841-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L842: build 37 position 16392707; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L842+; I2 seems to be L842-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L843: build 37 position 23303290; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L843+; I2 seems to be L843-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L844: build 37 position 2884029; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L844+ (though some of the results are somewhat ambiguous...probably in a region that is similar to other parts of the genome, causing read mapping issues); I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be L845: build 37 position 7652844; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L845+; I2 seems to be L845-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L846: build 37 position 7856500; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L846+; I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be L847: build 37 position 23154034; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L847+; I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be; (for some reason this site wasn't listed in my multi-sample VCF file for Hg-I, possibly due to excessive read depth, but it was called as a variant in many of my single-sample VCF files) L848: build 37 position 23302117; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L848+; I2 seems to be L848-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. So, in summary, it looks like five are approximately with M253 et al., while three (L844, L846, and L847) are older. On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net>wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Magoon > I took a quick look at the 1000 Genomes Project data at this site (build > 37 > position 20834703), and it suggests that L840 is likely approximately with > the SNPs (like M253) that define I1 (i.e. upstream of L22, Z58, Z63, Z131, > DF29). I2 samples seem to be L840-. > > [[While I don't know what terms like "suggest" and "likely approximately" > mean in the context of your message, the new WTY from L22+ is said to be > derived for L841 to L848 as well. > > L841 to L848 were previously seen in a L22- L338+ person's private > unpublished WTY according to FTDNA; that's why the recent public WTY does > not call L841 to L848 "new" snps. What does 1000 Genomes data suggest > with > regard to these snps? > > Upstream or downstream from Z131 and DF29? > > Ken ]] > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com 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 Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com 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 Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Begoña Martínez-Cruz1, Janet Ziegle2, Paula Sanz1, Graciela Sotelo1, Roger Anglada3, Stéphanie Plaza3 and David Comas1* for the Genographic Consortium Abstract Background: The analysis of human Y-chromosome variation in the context of population genetics and forensics requires the genotyping of dozens to hundreds of selected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). In the present study, we developed a 121-plex (121 SNPs in a single array) TaqMan array capable of distinguishing most haplogroups and subhaplogroups on the Y-chromosome human phylogeny in Europe. Results: We present data from 264 samples from several European areas and ethnic groups. The array developed in this study shows >99% accuracy of assignation to the Y human phylogeny (with an average call rate of genotypes >96%). Conclusions: We have created and evaluated a robust and accurate Y-chromosome multiplex which minimises the possible errors due to mixup when typing the same sample in several independent reactions paper is at http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/pdf/2041-2223-2-13.pdf Table 1 Genetic markers analysed in the OpenArray, the Y haplogroup they define, the alleles and their call rates (successful genotype calls) List of genetic markers analysed many HG listed by Marker Haplogroup Alleles Call rate % Bob I2*, ISOGG new I2b, I2c DNA Project Tyler Family DNA Project Genealogy Sunshine Coast ISOGG Papers/Presentations Cited A Fair Deal for Members of the Dafence and Ex Service Community Resgstore the Parity with CENTRELINK and other DVA Pensions that the ALP Govt stole from Disabled Veterans's Disability Payment The march to CANBERRA has begun. Will YOU join us?

Ken, You say : *" So, in summary, it looks like five are approximately with M253 et al., while three (L844, L846, and L847) are older."* So, do you think that this expands the geographical vista for Hg I1 (M253) AS generic ? Patrick Holland. On 11/7/2011 8:13 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > So, in summary, it looks like five are approximately with M253 et al., > while three (L844, L846, and L847) are older.

Since the process of checking these phylostructures out from 1000 Genomes data "seems" not definitive though very helpful in giving us preliminary information, a check when the snps enter the catalog is appropriate. But I would not spend more than one or two I2.......anything testing each of them. And I2....anything wll do, including I2b and I2c. -----Original Message----- From: Bob May Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:25 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L841-L848 Ken Could it be of any value for any of the old I2* people testing any of these three older timeline SNPs Bob

Here's my analysis of L841-L848 based on 1000 Genomes Project data: L841: build 37 position 14071004; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L841+; I2 seems to be L841-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L842: build 37 position 16392707; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L842+; I2 seems to be L842-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L843: build 37 position 23303290; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L843+; I2 seems to be L843-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L844: build 37 position 2884029; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L844+ (though some of the results are somewhat ambiguous...probably in a region that is similar to other parts of the genome, causing read mapping issues); I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be L845: build 37 position 7652844; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L845+; I2 seems to be L845-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. L846: build 37 position 7856500; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L846+; I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be L847: build 37 position 23154034; Z131 and DF29 and I2 all seem to be L847+; I haven't looked at others like Hg-J samples to see how far back this may be; (for some reason this site wasn't listed in my multi-sample VCF file for Hg-I, possibly due to excessive read depth, but it was called as a variant in many of my single-sample VCF files) L848: build 37 position 23302117; Z131 and DF29 seem to be L848+; I2 seems to be L848-, so I expect it to be approx. with M253 et al. So, in summary, it looks like five are approximately with M253 et al., while three (L844, L846, and L847) are older. On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net>wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Magoon > I took a quick look at the 1000 Genomes Project data at this site (build 37 > position 20834703), and it suggests that L840 is likely approximately with > the SNPs (like M253) that define I1 (i.e. upstream of L22, Z58, Z63, Z131, > DF29). I2 samples seem to be L840-. > > [[While I don't know what terms like "suggest" and "likely approximately" > mean in the context of your message, the new WTY from L22+ is said to be > derived for L841 to L848 as well. > > L841 to L848 were previously seen in a L22- L338+ person's private > unpublished WTY according to FTDNA; that's why the recent public WTY does > not call L841 to L848 "new" snps. What does 1000 Genomes data suggest with > regard to these snps? > > Upstream or downstream from Z131 and DF29? > > Ken ]] > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

-----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Ken, You say : *" So, in summary, it looks like five are approximately with M253 et al., while three (L844, L846, and L847) are older."* [[Actually, I am not the author of the above. These blasted email chopping systems have screwed up things --- someone else said that to me. KN ]]