GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266632766


From: "Tom Gull" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA of R1b1b2s to King Tut?
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:26:06 -0500
References: <mailman.5787.1266597968.2099.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><7B3ED479CB324BD7925ACA7EB65A99C7@anatoldesktop>
In-Reply-To: <7B3ED479CB324BD7925ACA7EB65A99C7@anatoldesktop>


Another thought - I was responding to the thread which was proposing the
"King Tut was U152" hypothesis. Looking at the whole message below, it looks
like the message I responded to left the original thread behind and moved on
to a discussion of U152 timing and had nothing to do directly with the King
Tut = U152 hypothesis. Based on the subject header, my message related to
the hypothesis that King Tut appeared to be U152 based on specific STR
markers and the likely age of that haplotype. I didn't realize the thread
had diverged into multiple topics. / Tom

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:30 PM
To: <>
Cc: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA of R1b1b2s to King Tut?

>>From: Tom Gull <>
>>Isn't there some wishful thinking going on here <g>. Don't the various
>>SNPs for U152 and U106 and the like fall so much into the same timeframe
>>that we could sub any of the others in for U152 and be equally likely to
>>have a hit? And don't we also know that it's very hard to guess which of
>>these SNP someone has based on STRs alone? / Tom
>
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> It would be MUCH more productive if you present here YOUR estimate. Air
> vibration does not provide much help.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Anatole
>
> *********************************
>
>> Dear John,
>> I think Anatole's estimate for R-U152 is pretty close to the true
>> TMRCA. I just did an intraclade TMRCA estimate using 87 67-marker R-U152
>> haplotypes and got 3650 using 50 markers and John Chandler's mutation
>> rates
>> and 3552 using 10 YHRD markers and using YHRD mutation rates. As I have
>> mentioned previously intraclade TMRCA estimates tend to underestimate the
>> true TMRCA by some percentage.
>> Sincerely,
>> Tim Janzen
>
> **********************************
>>
>> >What is the latest age estimate for U152?
>>
>> My response:
>>
>> JoGG, 5(2) 217-256 (2009)
>>
>> R-U152, 184 haplotypes, TMRCA 4125+/-450 years before present.
>>
>> Anatole Klyosov
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: