Subclade distribution maps (L193, M222 etc.)

[Jon]

Hi All,

I posted in another thread recently (see Scottish Royalty thread) about the possibility of L193 being connected to Pictish lines. This was due to an ongoing project investigating the discovery of Pictish carvings in Galloway, well outside the traditional 'Pictland' (http://www.gallowaypicts.com/)

I wondered what people think about the current distribution maps of SNPs? I tend to look at Semargl, which seems up to date. M222 has a clear Irish bias, with 'bleed-over' into Scotland. L1335, which Scotland's DNA regards as THE Pictish marker, does indeed seem to correspond with the boundaries of Pictland, with no representation in the south west (although the Picts clearly would have carried more than just one SNP among them!). L193 seems to be more south western than L1335, with obvious hot spots in Ayrshire and Galloway...but then good representation further west (Argyll) and even up north, in the old Pictish territories (Inverness, Moray, Fife/Perth etc.). It seems to be a mix, which at this stage could mean anything I guess.

What do you think of these maps? Are they at all useful? Any does anyone know of/use a different source than Semargl?

Any help appreciated!

Jon

[razyn]

The Y-DNA part of the FTDNA database (on which those maps are based) is a lot more reliable than the geographical part -- submitted by customers if they know it, if they can figure out how to enter it, if they remember the necessary difference between latitudes east or west of Greenwich, and if their paper-trail records are right.

A lot of FTDNA customers leave the geographical coordinates for their MDKA blank; the software reads that as latitude 0 and longitude 0, and that ancestor is in the south Atlantic off the coast of Africa. So, not all that helpful. The ones that have been entered, and are correct, are useful -- and they also show on Semargl maps.

I think Vladimir Tagankin (Semargl) is a good guy; I'm not among those who think there's something nefarious about "data scraping" from otherwise public sites and repackaging it (free of charge) in different, creative and useful formats. Not all of the input data is correct, and a map of incorrect (or missing) data isn't especially useful. But individual pushpins in specific locations, whether those be in Europe or America, can be quite useful.

[Webb]

The Y-DNA part of the FTDNA database (on which those maps are based) is a lot more reliable than the geographical part -- submitted by customers if they know it, if they can figure out how to enter it, if they remember the necessary difference between latitudes east or west of Greenwich, and if their paper-trail records are right.

A lot of FTDNA customers leave the geographical coordinates for their MDKA blank; the software reads that as latitude 0 and longitude 0, and that ancestor is in the south Atlantic off the coast of Africa. So, not all that helpful. The ones that have been entered, and are correct, are useful -- and they also show on Semargl maps.

I think Vladimir Tagankin (Semargl) is a good guy; I'm not among those who think there's something nefarious about "data scraping" from otherwise public sites and repackaging it (free of charge) in different, creative and useful formats. Not all of the input data is correct, and a map of incorrect (or missing) data isn't especially useful. But individual pushpins in specific locations, whether those be in Europe or America, can be quite useful.

I'm a big fan of his site. You can search individual snps, such as Z295, and see the kits who have tested positive. The only downside is there is a bit of a lag time before the Geno 2.0 results post to his site.

[Jon]

Thanks guys. There does seem to be a visible pattern on the maps developing for L193, M222 and others. I guess this can be helpful, even given the inevitable wrong information that sometimes happens. It also seems to be updated quite regularly...