PDA

View Full Version : Maternal haplogroup j1c2b5



Tomoboy092
11-25-2017, 01:09 AM
Does anyone else have maternal haplogroup j1c2b5 my furthest back maternal ancestor is Welsh I knew I was j1c2 but livingDNA narrowed mr down to j1c2b5 and they don't seem to have much about it?. Does anyone know where j1c2b5 is mostly found? I know j1is middle eastern but j1c2 and its subgroups tend to be European am I right in thinking this ?

Little bit
11-25-2017, 03:22 PM
J formed around 45,000 somewhere in West Asia, J1 sometime around 33,000 years ago, also in West Asia. I heard somewhere near, or in, the Fertile Crescent. J1c, and subclades, are thought to be mainly European, the mutation forming around the end of the last ice age. I have a full mitochondrial sequence test at FTDNA and am part of the mtdna J project and amongst the several J1c2b5's, they are:

1 United States (this is an error made by the customer since it's interpreted as Native American, which is impossible for mtdna J1c2b5.)
1 Denmark
2 Finland
2 Scotland
2 Ireland
3 UK/England
5 Unknown Origin

16 is a pretty decent number for a mtdna J subclade. My J1c3i only has 4 group members, including me. There are around 3,450 members. I just ordered the LivingDNA test today and am looking forward to what they say about my J1c3i. My mitochondrial ancestress was Mennonite PA Dutch, Lancaster PA, from Switzerland in the old country. My matches at FTDNA are German, Swiss, and PA Dutch.

11-25-2017, 03:51 PM
Does anyone else have maternal haplogroup j1c2b5 my furthest back maternal ancestor is Welsh I knew I was j1c2 but livingDNA narrowed mr down to j1c2b5 and they don't seem to have much about it?. Does anyone know where j1c2b5 is mostly found? I know j1is middle eastern but j1c2 and its subgroups tend to be European am I right in thinking this ?

I think JohnHowellsTyrfro is J1c1b2a, I suppose that is close.

11-27-2017, 10:46 AM
J formed around 45,000 somewhere in West Asia, J1 sometime around 33,000 years ago, also in West Asia. I heard somewhere near, or in, the Fertile Crescent. J1c, and subclades, are thought to be mainly European, the mutation forming around the end of the last ice age. I have a full mitochondrial sequence test at FTDNA and am part of the mtdna J project and amongst the several J1c2b5's, they are:

1 United States (this is an error made by the customer since it's interpreted as Native American, which is impossible for mtdna J1c2b5.)
1 Denmark
2 Finland
2 Scotland
2 Ireland
3 UK/England
5 Unknown Origin

16 is a pretty decent number for a mtdna J subclade. My J1c3i only has 4 group members, including me. There are around 3,450 members. I just ordered the LivingDNA test today and am looking forward to what they say about my J1c3i. My mitochondrial ancestress was Mennonite PA Dutch, Lancaster PA, from Switzerland in the old country. My matches at FTDNA are German, Swiss, and PA Dutch.

Little Bit,
Just curious since there is a sale on ftdna and I got a $20 coupon also, how I would benefit by getting the mtdna full sequence? Currently I am J2a1a1a ( from LivingDNA, 23andme had me on J2a1a1.
Would it be refined more? any new info coming out about historic populations? any others in the Projects with similar mtdna to me?

Little bit
11-27-2017, 12:33 PM
sgdavies:

Maybe, but to be honest, unless you have a compelling mtdna mystery to solve or are a mtdna-phile, like me, I don't recommend the full mitochondrial sequence test, or any stand alone mtdna testing. Even zero step matches can be 22, or more, generations to a common ancestor and I can't connect any of my 10 perfect matches to my genealogy. But I am a mtdna-phile, feeling particularly connected to that lineage for whatever reason, so it was important to me. I do like that I am directly participating in science as I was able to donate my results to GenBank, that's me:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/kf600657

FTDNA could do so much better with results and desperately needs an upgrade to it's interface. Joining groups helps, but mine, is still stuck on the old system of using YahooTech groups to communicate and refuses to break out less common subclades, like mine, so less helpful. Ancestral info is customer info driven, so problematic and FTDNA should be giving much better statistics at the very least. Overall, I do not recommend the test for the average genetic genealogist as you won't get a return for the money in most cases.

Edited to add: If FTDNA upgrades interface and invests some effort into connecting mtdna to scientific studies of populations, and even health, I will take back my negative review of it. It's got the potential to be something great, it's just not there (yet.)

11-27-2017, 12:37 PM
sgdavies:

Maybe, but to be honest, unless you have a compelling mtdna mystery to solve or are a mtdna-phile, like me, I don't recommend the full mitochondrial sequence test, or any stand alone mtdna testing. Even zero step matches can be 22, or more, generations to a common ancestor and I can't connect any of my 10 perfect matches to my genealogy. But I am a mtdna-phile, feeling particularly connected to that lineage for whatever reason, so it was important to me. I do like that I am directly participating in science as I was able to donate my results to GenBank, that's me:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/kf600657

FTDNA could do so much better with results and desperately needs an upgrade to it's interface. Joining groups helps, but mine, is still stuck on the old system of using YahooTech groups to communicate and refuses to break out less common subclades, like mine, so less helpful. Ancestral info is customer info driven, so problematic and FTDNA should be giving much better statistics at the very least. Overall, I do not recommend the test for the average genetic genealogist as you won't get a return for the money in most cases.

Thanks Little Bit for the advice. I think I shall probably take it.

timberwolf
11-27-2017, 06:54 PM
sgdavies:

Maybe, but to be honest, unless you have a compelling mtdna mystery to solve or are a mtdna-phile, like me, I don't recommend the full mitochondrial sequence test, or any stand alone mtdna testing. Even zero step matches can be 22, or more, generations to a common ancestor and I can't connect any of my 10 perfect matches to my genealogy. But I am a mtdna-phile, feeling particularly connected to that lineage for whatever reason, so it was important to me. I do like that I am directly participating in science as I was able to donate my results to GenBank, that's me:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/kf600657

FTDNA could do so much better with results and desperately needs an upgrade to it's interface. Joining groups helps, but mine, is still stuck on the old system of using YahooTech groups to communicate and refuses to break out less common subclades, like mine, so less helpful. Ancestral info is customer info driven, so problematic and FTDNA should be giving much better statistics at the very least. Overall, I do not recommend the test for the average genetic genealogist as you won't get a return for the money in most cases.

Edited to add: If FTDNA upgrades interface and invests some effort into connecting mtdna to scientific studies of populations, and even health, I will take back my negative review of it. It's got the potential to be something great, it's just not there (yet.)

So with step 2 and 3 matches, how many generations back are they?

Little bit
11-28-2017, 01:53 AM
timberwolf:

An older version of FTDNA used to suggest stats in this link:
https://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/mtDNAFull_Report.pdf

Their stats on their learning page is different now and doesn't mention the different levels of steps as far as I know. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in those numbers, as the scientific thinking may have changed. Either way, even at the most optimistic confidence level, it's too far back in time for most to trace. I've got decent genealogy and am able to document my mtdna back to be 5th great grandma for sure, and likely to my 6th great grandma, but I can't even connect any of my zero step matches.

timberwolf
11-28-2017, 02:53 AM
timberwolf:

An older version of FTDNA used to suggest stats in this link:
https://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/mtDNAFull_Report.pdf

Their stats on their learning page is different now and doesn't mention the different levels of steps as far as I know. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in those numbers, as the scientific thinking may have changed. Either way, even at the most optimistic confidence level, it's too far back in time for most to trace. I've got decent genealogy and am able to document my mtdna back to be 5th great grandma for sure, and likely to my 6th great grandma, but I can't even connect any of my zero step matches.

Thanks that is very useful information.

It would seem that even matches at a distance of 0 can be more than 500 years ago. Well before most peoples paper trails.