GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289934522


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dukes of Brabant - Neolithic J2
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:08:42 -0700
References: <447811.93151.qm@web113304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><004801cb85a0$9dd40310$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTinN62kVXExhdOi=Ko7--N6wtRU+d65vcWT3H7Ep@mail.gmail.com><001601cb85b6$c998af80$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTimdDYeqSdf3waugRumC=Jcbq8GnOM6sR2XYK83V@mail.gmail.com>


You have your idea of a haplogroup which is not necessarily the same as that
of others. With ancestral lines of some haplogroup MRCAs being thousands
and sometimes even tens of thousands years old, it seems silly to me to call
those whole, unobserved branch lines part of the haplogroup. Haplogroups
start with their MRCAs. So if you have tested one snp ancestral to MRCA and
found that snp not derived, you have probably confined the ancient dna to a
branch line which parted ways even further back in time. For example;
suppose the dna sample were found to be derived for one snp presently
phylogenetically equivalent to M170, but is also M170-, the y tree instantly
then requires renaming to make room for the new haplogroup tree structure.

But if we all sat around a drawing of the y tree on a piece of paper or on
the screen, I suspect there would be no disagreement as to which parts of
the tree could spawn the branch line leading to the dna sample and which
parts of the tree could not. So another unproductive thread about
definitions is hopefully not to be started on this topic.







----- Original Message -----
From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dukes of Brabant - Neolithic J2


I is not excluded, since I is defined by many different markers which
are equivalent in modern samples (so far), and they only tested M170.
Neither J is excluded, nor any of the F subclades defined by multiple
known markers.

J2 is definitely excluded, however, since J2 chromosomes possess all
the mutations defining J, and one of these (M304) was found to be
ancestral, and it appears that M172 (defining J2) was also found to be
ancestral.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Ken Nordtvedt <>
wrote:
> They measured and got F(xGHIJK)
>
> So J2 is excluded, and I is excluded. IJK snps and IJ snps were not
> tested,
> and F3 snps were not tested.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Dukes of Brabant - Neolithic J2
>
>
>> Did they check for I or IJ ?
>>
>> Could these enough markers to exclude J2?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ken Nordtvedt
>> <>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Aaron Salles Torres" <>
>>>
>>> Indeed, the Y DNA fragments that were recovered from the Neolithic
>>> farmers
>>> in the article cited above belong to paragroup F*, >
>>>
>>> The dna was F(x etc. ), not F*. They did not test for the quite
>>> plausible
>>> F3 haplogroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> 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
>



--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com


-------------------------------
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: