PDA

View Full Version : 150? (R1b-P25>L389>P297>M269....) above, below or both or what else?



TigerMW
10-17-2013, 06:06 PM
I see that FTDNA still treats L150 haplogroup label-wise as downstream of L23.

However, we do find L150+ L23- people, or at least FTDNA reports such.

Since we found that there is L150- downstream of L23 too, so I think the result was that ISOGG was considering this a back-mutation and therefore "L150.2"

I'm starting this thread as I'm trying to sort out the haplotypes that are L150+ L23- and in another group L23+ L150-. I thought it was making sense but Rometti is a dificult one. Is he considered L150.2?

jeanL
10-17-2013, 06:37 PM
Since we found that there is L150- downstream of L23 too, so I think the result was that ISOGG was considering this a back-mutation and therefore "L150.2"


The probabilities of L150+ L23- being carriers of a back mutation at the L23 position is technically equal to the probability that the L23+ mutation arose amongst a subgroup of L150+.

R.Rocca
10-17-2013, 06:40 PM
If there are L150+ L23- people and L23+ L150- people

...and...

there are L150+ Z2103/Z2015- people and Z2103/Z2015+ L150- people...

...then it looks like there were two back mutations, no?

At first it looks to be an unstable SNP, but I've never seen a L51+ who is L150-. Very strange.

Rathna
10-17-2013, 07:05 PM
I have written hundreds of letters about this, also here and recently.
1) It has been always said that L150+ was linked to L23+, then it was presupposed that M269 was L150-.
2) We know from many years that there are some L23+ who are L150-. Actually they are only two: Italian Romitti and English Seymour. In this case it is considered a back mutation.
3) But it is becoming clear that the R-M269* tested (firstly some people of Jewish origin) are L150+. It has been presupposed a mutation in R-M269 independent from that on L23+, but these people tested are also PF7558, PF7562, PF7563+. At this point L150 is useless. These people are M269+, L150+, PF7558/PF/562/PF7563+. These are the distinctive SNPs. I asked if there are some R-M269 who are L150-, that was presupposed, but I haven’t seen anyone so far. Neither I have seen one R-M269 who is PF7558/PF7562/PF7563-. For this I have ordered a Geno 2.0 for my acquired cousin Fabrizio Federighi of ancient Tuscan origin to see this. He has DYS462=12 and not 11. I’d be glad also to test some other R-M269, for instance LoPiccolo etc.
4) It is very likely so far that this tested R-M269 are the unique line survived and scattered all over Europe and Middle East.
5) I am waiting an answer to these questions.

seferhabahir
10-17-2013, 07:25 PM
1) It has been always said that L150+ was linked to L23+, then it was presupposed that M269 was L150-.
2) We know from many years that there are some L23+ who are L150-. Actually they are only two: Italian Romitti and English Seymour. In this case it is considered a back mutation.
3) But it is becoming clear that the R-M269* tested (firstly some people of Jewish origin) are L150+. It has been presupposed a mutation in R-M269 independent from that on L23+, but these people tested are also PF7558, PF7562, PF7563+. At this point L150 is useless. These people are M269+, L150+, PF7558/PF7562/PF7563+. These are the distinctive SNPs. I asked if there are some R-M269 who are L150-, that was presupposed, but I haven’t seen anyone so far. Neither I have seen one R-M269 who is PF7558/PF7562/PF7563-. For this I have ordered a Geno 2.0 for my acquired cousin Fabrizio Federighi of ancient Tuscan origin to see this. He has DYS462=12 and not 11. I’d be glad also to test some other R-M269, for instance LoPiccolo etc.
4) It is very likely so far that this tested R-M269 are the unique line survived and scattered all over Europe and Middle East.
5) I am waiting an answer to these questions.


I stopped thinking about this for a long time because it was just getting too confusing.

Personally, I think L150 is above L23, but I agree with Rathna that the SNPs PF7558/PF7562/PF7563 as tested on the Geno 2.0 chip provide more meaningful results now than checking for L150 and L23. Thomas Krahn doesn't really trust either L150 or L23 as reliable because there are apparently very similar sequences elsewhere in the genome that are prone to recombination events which may overwrite the L23 and L150 markers back to their ancestral state. He has suggested in the past to remove them from the Y-tree because of this. Maybe most problematic is L150. The highly repetitive area next to L150 (in the heterochromatic centromere region of the Y chromosome) could overwrite things which perhaps can lead to unpredicted results, according to Thomas.

The L150+ results in the known L150+ L23- Geno 2.0 kits were not tested with conventional sequencing technology. Thomas thought it would make sense to confirm the L150+ (and probably also L23-) result for at least one of the PF7558/PF7562/PF7563 kits with Sanger sequencing, because the Geno2 chip can always have a small percentage of wrong calls and another SNP in the close proximity of L150 could cause a misinterpretation of the allele call. FYI, SNP tests for PF7558, PF7562, and PF7563 are available for order from FTDNA.

I thought about ordering stand-alone SNP tests for L150 and L23 for my cousin's kit (one of the PF7558/PF7562/PF7563 kits listed at the top of the ht35 project), but have not done it. I might reconsider if people think it would help to better understand the situation and lead to a more accurate Y-tree. M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ is clearly a parallel group to L23, IMHO.

Rathna
10-17-2013, 07:52 PM
M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ is clearly a parallel group to L23, IMHO.

I don’t understand this. It may have a meaning if you assume that the most important SNP is just L150 you have said unreliable, because it is the unique SNP unchanged between these two groups, and this is followed in the R1b Jewish project, but who is R-M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ is also L23- and L49-, then these aren’t parallel groups, but one is R-M269* and the other R-L23* (which doesn’t exist per se, being all the L23 also L150+, except two, and at least Z2103/Z2105+).

The problem for me is if there is some R-M269* which is not only L150- (which was the first hypothesis but I haven’t seen anyone so far) but also PF7558- and /or PF7562- and/or PF7563-.

seferhabahir
10-17-2013, 08:17 PM
Maybe parallel was not the right choice of words here. I guess what I meant to say was that it looks to me like there are two groups under M269+/L150+. One group that is L23- and usally has DYS426=11 and one group that is L23+ and usually has DYS426=12. These would correspond to the way that groups A and B are shown in the Jewish R1b and ht35 projects, group A being L23- and group B being L23+. Group A appears to be PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ as well, although that remains to be seen. We have conjectured that this would be true as well for people like Gashi who is L150+, L23-, and DYS426=11.

Rathna
10-17-2013, 09:09 PM
Maybe parallel was not the right choice of words here. I guess what I meant to say was that it looks to me like there are two groups under M269+/L150+. One group that is L23- and usally has DYS426=11 and one group that is L23+ and usually has DYS426=12. These would correspond to the way that groups A and B are shown in the Jewish R1b and ht35 projects, group A being L23- and group B being L23+. Group A appears to be PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ as well, although that remains to be seen. We have conjectured that this would be true as well for people like Gashi who is L150+, L23-, and DYS426=11.

Yes, parallel like U106 and P312 or like Z2103/Z2105 and L51 etc. Anyway R-M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ isn't the ancestor of R-L23* but a paragroup which could be also the unique survived, but we hope to find some R-M269+/L150- or R-M269+/L150+ but PF7558- etc.
It is incredible that no one R-M269* has been tested beyond these six on the "ht 35 fTDNA Project"!

TigerMW
10-18-2013, 01:41 AM
Here are the folks I'm finding that I think are R1b-M269* but L150+. They all are 426=11 and I'm pretty sure they are all L23- whether they tested for it or not.

f118810 Bakaturski M269+ L150+ U106- mm-a42611-150 Lithuania, Vilnius (Jewish project)

f126775 Bardige M269+ L150+ PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Ukraine, Berestechko (Jewish project)

f274480 Bebrovo M269+ L150+ mm-a42611-150 Bulgaria

f226720 Fabrikant M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Belarus, Vetka

fE16492 Gashi M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Albania

f152308 Jaffe M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Lithuania (Jewish project)

fN114224 Lifschitz M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Belarus

f236409 Sobelman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN29316 Sznajderman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Poland, Izbica (Jewish project)

fN92413 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Greece

f282121 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Ireland

fE10342 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN106699 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

They tend to be 393=12 391=10 392=14 406s1>=12 534<=14 to go with 426=11. As always, if you see any errors, let me know. I'm rearranging and cleaning up the R1b-Early_Haplotypes spreadsheet.

Joe B
10-18-2013, 02:11 AM
Here are the folks I'm finding that I think are R1b-M269* but L150+. They all are 426=11 and I'm pretty sure they are all L23- whether they tested for it or not.

f118810 Bakaturski M269+ L150+ U106- mm-a42611-150 Lithuania, Vilnius (Jewish project)

f126775 Bardige M269+ L150+ PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Ukraine, Berestechko (Jewish project)

f274480 Bebrovo M269+ L150+ mm-a42611-150 Bulgaria

f226720 Fabrikant M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Belarus, Vetka

fE16492 Gashi M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Albania

f152308 Jaffe M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Lithuania (Jewish project)

fN114224 Lifschitz M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Belarus

f236409 Sobelman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN29316 Sznajderman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Poland, Izbica (Jewish project)

fN92413 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Greece

f282121 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Ireland

fE10342 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN106699 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

They tend to be 393=12 391=10 392=14 406s1>=12 534<=14 to go with 426=11. As always, if you see any errors, let me know. I'm rearranging and cleaning up the R1b-Early_Haplotypes spreadsheet.

I think this guy might qualify.

N57861 White White Surname Project R1b1a2a1 L150.? PF7558+, PF7562+, PF7563+, Geno2.0
12 25 14 11 11-15 11 12 12 14 13 30

Saw him hanging out with a L150/CTS7822+ (N114393) in the White surname project.

You found several that I didn't know about. Thank you for doing this.

TigerMW
10-18-2013, 02:36 AM
Here is the L23 downstream folks that are listed in the R1b ht35 new project as

_b3. R1b1a2a2c: L23+ Z2103+ Z2105+ L150.2/PF6274.2+ (confirmed or predicted)

fN37809 Romitti mml2303-L150! Italy, Lombardy, Mantova, Suzzara

fN37658 Romitti mml2303-L150! Italy, Lombardy, Mantova, Suzzara (L150-?)

f107114 Bennett mml2303-L150!-43716 England, London

f237225 Coat mml2303-L150!-43716 England, South West, Somerset, Huntspill

f47778 Lock mml2303-L150!-43716 UK

f16910 Robinson mml2303-L150!-43716-A Scotland

f108347 Seymour mml2303-L150!-43716-A England, East, Hertfordshire, Sawbridgeworth

f64409 Smith mml2303-L150!-43716-A UK

f247019 Ware mml2303-L150!-43716-A England

Romitti and Seymour show up as L23+ L150- like you would think a back mutation should show up on the Y DNA SNP report. However, some of the others, i.e. Bennett and Robinson, show up as L150+ on the Y DNA SNP report screen. Can anyone explain why?

As far as STR clustering goes, the above really could be a deep ancestral related group although Romitti stands alone with GDs of 15 to 24 to the 437=16 group at 67. Robinson is GD=6 with Bennett and only 3 with Seymour... but that is the quandry. Robinson and Seymour are closely related but one is L150+ and the other is L150- according to FTDNA's SNP report.

Am I missing something? I think ISOGG still lists L150.2! as a legitimate back mutation under L23.

AJL
10-18-2013, 03:02 AM
Hm -- in Britain the surnames Locke, Smith, Bennett, and Robinson can all be Romany.

TigerMW
10-18-2013, 03:12 AM
I think this guy might qualify.

N57861 White White Surname Project R1b1a2a1 L150.? PF7558+, PF7562+, PF7563+, Geno2.0
12 25 14 11 11-15 11 12 12 14 13 30

Saw him hanging out with a L150/CTS7822+ (N114393) in the White surname project.

Thanks.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/white/default.aspx?section=ysnp

My formulas come up with these as the terminal and relevant SNPs: P297+ L150+ PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+

I looked at the FTDNA screen, and sure enough, there is no M269. I don't know if that is a negative or a no call. I assume M269 is in Geno 2, right?

I wasn't going to bring this up yet because it's enough to think about just about the two groups already listed, but there is a third anomaly group.

Since these guys are all 426=11 and given the L23 testing that has been done, they appear to be all M269*:

fE16492 Gashi M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Albania

f152308 Jaffe M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Lithuania (Jewish project)

fN114224 Lifschitz M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Belarus

f236409 Sobelman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN29316 Sznajderman M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 Poland, Izbica (Jewish project)

fN57861 White P297+ L150+ PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+ mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN92413 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Greece

f282121 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L23- mm-a42611-150 Ireland

fE10342 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

fN106699 zzzUnknown M269+ L150+ L51- mm-a42611-150 zzzUnkOrigin

White actually fits closest to the guy from Greece, but some of these are only 12 markers.

Rathna
10-18-2013, 05:35 AM
I think this guy might qualify.

N57861 White White Surname Project R1b1a2a1 L150.? PF7558+, PF7562+, PF7563+, Geno2.0
12 25 14 11 11-15 11 12 12 14 13 30

Saw him hanging out with a L150/CTS7822+ (N114393) in the White surname project.

You found several that I didn't know about. Thank you for doing this.

We have spoken a lot about these haplotypes, see "From R-L150 to R-CTS7822".
N57861 is R-M269+/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+
N114393 is R-L23+/L150+/Z2103+/Z2105+/PF7822+(Z2110+)

Rathna
10-18-2013, 05:39 AM
Here is the L23 downstream folks that are listed in the R1b ht35 new project as

_b3. R1b1a2a2c: L23+ Z2103+ Z2105+ L150.2/PF6274.2+ (confirmed or predicted)

fN37809 Romitti mml2303-L150! Italy, Lombardy, Mantova, Suzzara

fN37658 Romitti mml2303-L150! Italy, Lombardy, Mantova, Suzzara (L150-?)

f107114 Bennett mml2303-L150!-43716 England, London

f237225 Coat mml2303-L150!-43716 England, South West, Somerset, Huntspill

f47778 Lock mml2303-L150!-43716 UK

f16910 Robinson mml2303-L150!-43716-A Scotland

f108347 Seymour mml2303-L150!-43716-A England, East, Hertfordshire, Sawbridgeworth

f64409 Smith mml2303-L150!-43716-A UK

f247019 Ware mml2303-L150!-43716-A England

Romitti and Seymour show up as L23+ L150- like you would think a back mutation should show up on the Y DNA SNP report. However, some of the others, i.e. Bennett and Robinson, show up as L150+ on the Y DNA SNP report screen. Can anyone explain why?

As far as STR clustering goes, the above really could be a deep ancestral related group although Romitti stands alone with GDs of 15 to 24 to the 437=16 group at 67. Robinson is GD=6 with Bennett and only 3 with Seymour... but that is the quandry. Robinson and Seymour are closely related but one is L150+ and the other is L150- according to FTDNA's SNP report.

Am I missing something? I think ISOGG still lists L150.2! as a legitimate back mutation under L23.

I have written many times that this cluster has no reason to be, just for mixing samples with L150+ and with L150- when the back mutation from L150+ to L150- amongst R-L23+ people should have been the characteristic.

VinceT
10-18-2013, 05:59 AM
The last time I had looked at that, the data appeared to suggest that L150.1 is actually situated at or just under M269 and above L23, while the back mutation L150.2! exists below R-Z2103, Z2105, parallel to R-L584 and R-L277.1.

The problem is that so few in that region of the tree had been tested for all of these SNPs to see if the pattern holds, mainly to seek out if anyone is actually M269+ L150.1- L23-.

It was once the opinion of Vince V. that L150 be dropped from the tree entirely, but to me it seems consistent enough for all those below R-L11.

TigerMW
10-18-2013, 02:38 PM
The last time I had looked at that, the data appeared to suggest that L150.1 is actually situated at or just under M269 and above L23, while the back mutation L150.2! exists below R-Z2103, Z2105, parallel to R-L584 and R-L277.1.

The problem is that so few in that region of the tree had been tested for all of these SNPs to see if the pattern holds, mainly to seek out if anyone is actually M269+ L150.1- L23-.

It was once the opinion of Vince V. that L150 be dropped from the tree entirely, but to me it seems consistent enough for all those below R-L11.

I am now leaning for dropping L150 from the tree and just treating it like an advanced STR marker, i.e. DYS464X....
unless someone can explain the inconsistency between Robinson L150+ and Seymour L150- in the variety mml2303-L150!-43716.
The really are in legitimate cluster/variety based on STRs, M269+ and L23-. Only L150 is inconsistent it seems.

L150+ is consistent for L51 and below as far as I can see, but it serves no differentiating purpose. Where we need it to be consistent to be useful, it isn't, again, unless I'm missing something.


Here is the L23 downstream folks that are listed in the R1b ht35 new project as

_b3. R1b1a2a2c: L23+ Z2103+ Z2105+ L150.2/PF6274.2+ (confirmed or predicted)
[FONT=Courier New]
....
As far as STR clustering goes, the above really could be a deep ancestral related group although Romitti stands alone with GDs of 15 to 24 to the 437=16 group at 67. Robinson is GD=6 with Bennett and only 3 with Seymour... but that is the quandry. Robinson and Seymour are closely related but one is L150+ and the other is L150- according to FTDNA's SNP report.

Am I missing something? I think ISOGG still lists L150.2! as a legitimate back mutation under L23.

seferhabahir
10-18-2013, 04:51 PM
I would be OK with dropping L150, and just using L23 and PF7558/PF7562/PF7563 as much more reasonable differentiators below M269 since they appear mutually exclusive in a pretty consistent way.

Rathna
10-18-2013, 05:55 PM
Hm -- in Britain the surnames Locke, Smith, Bennett, and Robinson can all be Romany.

Of course not all the “Smith” will be Romany, otherwise English would be Romany in large part, but I agree with you, and wrote this, and hypothesized that also Italian “Romitti” for his surname could be of Gypsy origin. Perhaps this wasn’t well accepted by my friend Belgieri, who manages Romitti’s tests. But I supposed that this rare L23+/L150- could have come from Eastern Europe or Middle East, being that haplogroup not diffused amongst Gypsies, but probably introgressed during their migration from India.

Who has made this subclade on the “ht 35 FTDNA Project” (and I wrote this elsewhere) probably didn’t chose a supposed L150- like characteristic, not possessed from everyone, but some rare markers values, I indicated in my previous post, and this is Vincent Vizachero’s method.
I wrote this also to Locke, probably on eng.molgen, and hadn’t any answer.

Joe B
12-01-2013, 03:37 AM
R-L150 L150+, M269+, Z2103- Bulgarian tested R1b1a2a L23* by 23andme. This was just posted by eastara on eng.molgen. Somebody that is a member of that forum might want to have a look. DYS426=11 makes it look like L150.?+
274480 Bulgaria R1b1a2a1 12 25 14 11 10-15 11 12 12 14 13 30

Rathna
12-01-2013, 05:40 AM
R-L150 L150+, M269+, Z2103- Bulgarian tested R1b1a2a L23* by 23andme. This was just posted by eastara on eng.molgen. Somebody that is a member of that forum might want to have a look. DYS426=11 makes it look like L150.?+
274480 Bulgaria R1b1a2a1 12 25 14 11 10-15 11 12 12 14 13 30

Joe B, I'll go to look at that haplotype posted from my friend eastara, but from what you say I'd say he is an R-M269/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ which is all the Jewish cluster, many people from the Balkans, and even an Irish with the most varied haplotype so far. By the haplotype it should comprehend also many Italian R-M269 (but perhaps not all) and I am waiting to test for this my relative Fabrizio Federighi for Geno 2.0, but I am waiting to receive before my Chromo2, which is late I don't understand why, because if it didn't respond all my expectations, I'd use this test for me. But, for what you say, to test Federighi would be very interesting, just for understanding this R-M269 better.

Rathna
12-01-2013, 06:28 AM
Joe B, I'll go to look at that haplotype posted from my friend eastara, but from what you say I'd say he is an R-M269/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ which is all the Jewish cluster, many people from the Balkans, and even an Irish with the most varied haplotype so far. By the haplotype it should comprehend also many Italian R-M269 (but perhaps not all) and I am waiting to test for this my relative Fabrizio Federighi for Geno 2.0, but I am waiting to receive before my Chromo2, which is late I don't understand why, because if it didn't respond all my expectations, I'd use this test for me. But, for what you say, to test Federighi would be very interesting, just for understanding this R-M269 better.

274480 Bebrovo, Elena municipality, Bulgaria Bulgaria R1b1a2a1
12 25 14 11 10-15 11 12 12 14 13 30 16 10-10 11 11 24 15 19 30 15-16-16-17

274480 Bebrovo, Elena municipality, Bulgaria R1b1a2a1 R-L150
L150+, M269+, Z2103-

Of course this haplotype isn't in line with what has been said about R-M269/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+, i.e. that it were a recent survived clade. I didn't agree with that already speaking about the Irish haplotype. We should say that the Jewish haplotype is a recent haplotype introgressed in the Jewish pool, but it doesn't exaust all the haplogroup, which is diffused overall in Europe and isn't recent one.

Rathna
12-01-2013, 10:03 AM
274480 Bebrovo, Elena municipality, Bulgaria Bulgaria R1b1a2a1
12 25 14 11 10-15 11 12 12 14 13 30 16 10-10 11 11 24 15 19 30 15-16-16-17

274480 Bebrovo, Elena municipality, Bulgaria R1b1a2a1 R-L150
L150+, M269+, Z2103-

Of course this haplotype isn't in line with what has been said about R-M269/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+, i.e. that it were a recent survived clade. I didn't agree with that already speaking about the Irish haplotype. We should say that the Jewish haplotype is a recent haplotype introgressed in the Jewish pool, but it doesn't exaust all the haplogroup, which is diffused overall in Europe and isn't recent one.

This I have just written and posted on eng.molgen:
"I have written about this haplotype on anthrogenica as it were R-M269+/L150+ and possibly as PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+, but if he has the 23andMe data like L23+ and L49+, he should be the first R-L23* we were searching for. 23andMe is very reliable about L23 and L49, I am positive for both

P.S. Another possibility could be that he breaks the two SNPs Z2103 and Z2105 thought on the same plane: he should be negative for Z2103 and positive for Z2105. I have been tested only for Z2105+, also for this I am waiting my results from Chromo 2 which should test both.

Rathna
12-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Eastara writes:
"Just noticed he is a perfect match at 12 markers with N92413 from Greece from the group you mentioned _a. R1b1a2: L150.?+ L23- L51- L11- (also possibly PF7558+, PF7562+ & PF7563+). This guy has been tested with Geno 2.0 and he is L23-. How come the Bulgarian is classified L23+ by 23andMe? Maybe the 23andMe algorityhm is looking for L49 only.
It seems that Geno 2.0 is not testing for L49, is there any possibility they are not on one plane with L23?"
My answer:
This haplotype is typical of the Balkans:
3 14 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 - >>
1 14 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,15 12 12 15 19 15 15 24 11 21 22 12 12 16 11 - >>
1 of 291 Greece [Greek] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 of 104 Romania [Romanian] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 of 122 Bulgaria [Bulgarian] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 of 206 Athens, Greece [Greek] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe

But see also.
14 14 30 25 11 13 12 11,15 2 >>
15 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,15 1 >>
14 13 29 25 11 13 12 10,15 1 >>
14 14 30 24 11 13 12 10,15 1 >>
14 14 30 25 11 14 12 10,15 1 >>
14 14 30 25 11 13 13 10,15 1 >>
14 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,16 1 >>

Eastara, to answer your question, you should send me his 23andMe raw data. For what I know, 23andMe is reliable. Certainly all these R-L23* after years that we didn't find anyone is a little suspect. More likely that they are R-M269* as I said at the first glance.

Rathna
12-01-2013, 11:05 AM
To investigate the closest haplotypes:
1 14 14 30 25 11 13 12 11,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 - >>
1 14 14 30 25 11 13 12 11,15 13 13 14 19 16 16 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 - >>
1 of 495 Warsaw, Poland [Polish] Eurasian - European - Eastern European Europe
1 of 1114 Leipzig, Germany [German] Eurasian - European - Western European Europe
1 15 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,15 12 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -
1 of 52 Skopje, Macedonia [Macedonian] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 14 13 29 25 11 13 12 10,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 - >>
1 of 390 Andalucía/Extremadura, Spain [Spanish] Eurasian - European - Western European Europe
1 14 14 30 24 11 13 12 10,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 of 206 Athens, Greece [Greek] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 14 14 30 25 11 14 12 10,15 12 12 15 19 15 17 24 11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 of 191 Northern Greece, Greece [Greek] Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Europe
1 14 14 30 25 11 13 13 10,15 12 12 15 19 16 17 23 12 16 22 13 12 19 10 U106 R-U106
1 of 2085 Netherlands [Dutch] Eurasian - European - Western European Europe
1 14 14 30 25 11 13 12 10,16 12 12 15 19 15 16 24 11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -
1 of 1079 Australia [European] Eurasian - European - Western European Oceania / Australia

Rathna
12-01-2013, 12:54 PM
What markers are considered for the haplotypes? I'm wondering so I can post mine for comparison since I am also "L23".

YHRD sequence is:
DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYSS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS385a, DYS385b,
DYS438, DYS439, DYS437, DYS448, DYS456, DYS458, DYS635, H4 (augmented of 1)

Joe B
12-01-2013, 05:39 PM
Joe B, I'll go to look at that haplotype posted from my friend eastara, but from what you say I'd say he is an R-M269/L150+/PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+ which is all the Jewish cluster, many people from the Balkans, and even an Irish with the most varied haplotype so far. By the haplotype it should comprehend also many Italian R-M269 (but perhaps not all) and I am waiting to test for this my relative Fabrizio Federighi for Geno 2.0, but I am waiting to receive before my Chromo2, which is late I don't understand why, because if it didn't respond all my expectations, I'd use this test for me. But, for what you say, to test Federighi would be very interesting, just for understanding this R-M269 better.
Thanks for following up with eastara's great find. Finding more and more L23/L150 in Bulgaria. Testing #274480 for L23 again by Sanger method(smal's suggestion) will probably be required by ISOGG.

P.S. Your Chromo2 results are important to many of us. Thanks for your testing.

Joe B
12-16-2013, 04:05 AM
This I have just written and posted on eng.molgen:
"I have written about this haplotype on anthrogenica as it were R-M269+/L150+ and possibly as PF7558+/PF7562+/PF7563+, but if he has the 23andMe data like L23+ and L49+, he should be the first R-L23* we were searching for. 23andMe is very reliable about L23 and L49, I am positive for both

P.S. Another possibility could be that he breaks the two SNPs Z2103 and Z2105 thought on the same plane: he should be negative for Z2103 and positive for Z2105. I have been tested only for Z2105+, also for this I am waiting my results from Chromo 2 which should test both.
Z2105 came in negative so _a. R1b1a2: L150.?+ L23- L51- L11- (also possibly PF7558+, PF7562+ & PF7563+) should be the correct group.
#274480 L150+, M269+, Z2103-, Z2105-

Geolocke
03-07-2014, 10:19 PM
Locke here. I have been in contact with Bennett, Coat, Seymour and French. Our individual research shows that all our ancestor's family lines originate in the northern border region between Somerset and Devon counties. Our research was driven by our close matches at the 67 STR marker level. I am Co-Admin of the Locke Y-DNA project. The Admin of our project *is* Romey and is Hg H1a.

Our little group has been working under the assumption that we all derive from a single ancestor from (most likely) pre-surname times. It came as a surprise to us last year when we were moved into the new sub-clade. For most of the past year I have been reading your posts on this and other threads and I feel almost competent enough to explain all this to my grandson, but not quite yet.

I want to thank you all for discussing this topic and I hope to add to the science someday, but testing funds are limited. I have tested Z2103+ and I am curious what SNP I should test next. Advice would be welcome. On a related note: If funds were *not* an issue, which test would be better to help sort this out, Geno-2 or Big-Y?

Just curious ... george.

Rathna
03-07-2014, 10:53 PM
Locke here. I have been in contact with Bennett, Coat, Seymour and French. Our individual research shows that all our ancestor's family lines originate in the northern border region between Somerset and Devon counties. Our research was driven by our close matches at the 67 STR marker level. I am Co-Admin of the Locke Y-DNA project. The Admin of our project *is* Romey and is Hg H1a.

Our little group has been working under the assumption that we all derive from a single ancestor from (most likely) pre-surname times. It came as a surprise to us last year when we were moved into the new sub-clade. For most of the past year I have been reading your posts on this and other threads and I feel almost competent enough to explain all this to my grandson, but not quite yet.

I want to thank you all for discussing this topic and I hope to add to the science someday, but testing funds are limited. I have tested Z2103+ and I am curious what SNP I should test next. Advice would be welcome. On a related note: If funds were *not* an issue, which test would be better to help sort this out, Geno-2 or Big-Y?

Just curious ... george.

Hi Locke, glad to find you here. I have written a lot about your haplogroup and haplotype. It is clear that your haplogroup in "ht 35 FTDNA Project" and also in the Morley's tree is wrong, only because someone choose, wrongly, that L150+ was the SNP that linked two different haplogroups: R-M269 and R-L23.
You are of course R-L23 and now we know you are R-Z2110* like me and a few others so far. Amongst your group there are two different clusters: yours, with Coat and Bennet, and the last four: the Italian Romitti is put in the middle, but only because he is L150- like Seymour, but he is far related to you all, and my thinking is that the origin is from Roman soldiers (yet to see from which part of the Empire, either from Italy or elsewhere), whereas firstly I hypothesized also a Gypsy origin, now I think not believable.
A member of the second group, Ware, an African-American but with an English ancestor linked probably to the Smiths, is having his Big Y. We are waiting for his results. I, who am linked with you but further than Romitti, have had a Chromo2 and have some SNPs of the series S, but also 2 PF and 1 Z.
For this I think that you could wait for these results before doing a new test. Of course the Big Y would be the best, also to compare you with Ware, but it is also the most expensive. By the cheaper Chromo2 (only the Y raw data) you could compare with me, but when we have Ware's results it could be possible also to test a few SNPs with Thomas Krahn and to spend even less.
I think I'll be able to say something deeper after Ware's results, which should be next.

Joe B
03-07-2014, 11:38 PM
Thanks for posting George and welcome to Anthrogenica. Looks like you have a lot to offer with the information you have gathered.

Glad you tested for Z2103 since it is not offered on any of the SNP array tests right now. The most obvious next SNP to test would be Z2110/CTS7822 since that is what Seymour is from his Geno 2.0 results. That SNP can be found on the Geno 2.0 and Chromo 2 SNP arrays. Z2110/CTS7822 can be tested as a single SNP at YSEQ (http://shop.yseq.net/). If you are negative for Z2110/CTS7822, L584 and L277 would be worth testing.

If funding were not an issue, Big-Y or Full Genomes, Inc. would be excellent choices for SNP discovery.

Hopefully a better SNP array test will be offered soon that does a better job of covering the R1b-Z2103 subclade.

Also, consider 111 STRs for comparing how close you guys are related in the nearer term.

Thanks again for your testing, cooperation amongst your group and making the SNPs viewable in the Locke project.

The debate is still out there on how long Z2103 has been on the Isles. My guess is not that long since it is so rare in Northwest Europe.

Say hello to your grandson and have him explain this to us.

Edit: Rathna mentioned Thomas Krahn. YSEQ and Thomas are the same.
This tree by Anthrogenica member smal has #108347 Seymour under SNP F672 which is downstream from Z2110/CTS7822. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1727-R1b-phylogeny&p=26401&viewfull=1#post26401 The same can be found on member Chris Morley's computer-generated phylogenetic tree near the bottom of page 45.
http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny

Rathna
03-08-2014, 11:13 AM
Hi Locke, I am seeing that your mtDNA comes from Italy, and even more from Lucca:
47778 Locke Mariana Alfieri, 1820 - 1855, Lucca Italy X
A16129G, T16187C, G16230A, C16311T
C146T, C152T, T204C, G207A, A247G, G263A, T480C, 522.1A, 522.2C, 309.1C, 315.1C
You should know that this region, around the Monti Pisani, which is also mine, is very interesting not only for the Y but also for the mtDNA. It comes from there my K1a1b1e, the R0a2 (new subclade) of an American adopted, the other R0a2 of my acquired cousin Fabrizio Federighi (whose are waiting for his Geno 2.0). Even though it isn't easy to understand this new Behar's reassessment, you couldn't be hg. X, but also something close to this HV from Arabia:
184336 HV A16129G, T16187C, C16189T, T16223C, G16230A, T16278C, A16293G, C16311T G73A, C146T, C195T, A247G, T480C, 522.1A, 522.2C, 309.1C, 315.1C
and the mutation T480C is very very rare. For this I think that it could be interesting also an FMS or, from Geno 2.0 or other, to have something similar without a lot expense.

Geolocke
03-08-2014, 03:15 PM
Rathna, upgrading my Mt test to FGS is another of my "must do" options competing for my research testing funds. Just when I thought I was getting a grip on understanding my Y-Haplo, I then discover that I am also Mt-Haplo X. I won't comment further here since this is a Y-DNA board, other than to say I sure wish I could pick a winning Lottery number so I could test out everything at once. -geo :-)

Geolocke
03-08-2014, 05:44 PM
Rathna & Joe B, thank you for your welcome. I hope I can contribute something useful to this discussion. My specialty is not population genetics (which I am trying understand) but actually records analysis and GIS mapping/analysis. That being said, I'd like to share with you a little of the background that I have been working on with our Bennett-Coat-French-Locke-Seymour "cluster" in SW England. I do this in the hope that your understanding of our unique(?) non-WAMH SNP signature may help us better understand our multi-family cluster.

My earliest Known Ancestor was born in Philadelphia, PA in the 1690's but I have no paper trail established back to England. I do have one genetic LOCKE cousin (out of 100 Lockes in our project) who traces his line back to South Moulton, Devon (near the border of Somerset) in the mid 1600's. However, his ancestor's migrated to the US in the 1870's so there is at least 180 years separation (roughly 6 generations) between us to our common ancestor, and maybe longer than that.

There are many Bennett matches to our Locke family but it seems to me that they all appear to be descended from one individual who migrated to Massachusetts in the 1600's. Bennett is currently looking for an English connection and had an analysis performed based on 19th Century Population schedules looking at the convergence of our various family names being located in/near the same place on the same population schedules. His results point to a statistically likely location on the coast of the Bristol Bay, Burnham on Sea, Somerset.

Coat traces their line to a specific Village in Somerset, North Petherton, which is just south of Bennett's likely location and NE of Locke's location.

Seymour Traces his direct line to Sawbridgeworth, Hertford, (NNE of London) but he notes that the Duke of Somerset was a Seymour and that the reported "home" of the Norman Seymour's was Penhow Castle in Newport, Gwent, southeast Wales, which is across Bristol Bay and inland from Bennett's likely location, but he has not established a connection to those Seymours.

I mis-spoke before when I said I had been in contact with French. I have not contacted French, but their direct ancestor comes from Cornwall which, while not immediate to Bennett-Coat-Locke, is still in the SW England.

Other names that have matching STR results to ours in the lower testing levels include Fallis/Follis (37 marker test only), Smith from Granada, and Kingston (various matches from England and Ireland).

With regards to Roman settlements in England, my research shows that the site of the current City of Exeter near the English Channel was the major Roman Settlement in the SW of England, but there were also a number of minor Roman settlements along both sides of Bristol Bay, which might make sense given the history metal mining in that region (especially copper, a major ingredient in Roman Bronze weapons). Also intriguing is that one Copper mine dates back to the Bronze age, although it is located in Northern Wales, not near Bristol Bay. Yes, it's a stretch, but not to be ignored just yet, I think.

See http://www.greatormemines.info/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_mining_in_Wales#Copper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_mining_in_Wales#Copper)

We (Bennett-Coat-Locke) are all hoping to drum up interest in Y-DNA testing of individuals living today in this region to help us make connections and sort out our various family lines, but given our shared SNP signature from that relatively small region, it is unclear to me now if we are seeing a descent from a single individual from historic times (Roman, Norman or otherwise), or if indeed this is a true population cluster (if that is the correct term) of different individuals whose common ancestor occurred much earlier in pre-history during the Bronze Age. That is where my ignorance of population genetics comes into play. I haven't quite grasped the "big picture", but given the recent identification of our SNP signature, it may be too early to be able to form such a "big picture".

I am also now wondering if an 'off-shoot' project from the ht-35 group should be started to focus specifically on this region and our particular SNP signature, although I'm not really sure how to promote it among those who have already tested and (more importantly) how to convince folks currently living in that region to be tested. This is all assuming that such a group does not already exist with Oxford Ancestors or another company.

Well, I've probably written enough to expose my ignorance on this subject, but I would welcome once again your comments and thoughts. I also wonder if this post should have been made as the start of a new thread, but If so, I assume the Moderator will tell me. Thanks all -geo

Pillar_of_fire
03-21-2014, 12:17 PM
Hi all,

news on 274480

He is
PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+
M269+ L23- L150+ Z2103- Z2105-
waiting for L49

Rathna
03-21-2014, 01:07 PM
Hi all,

news on 274480

He is
PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+
M269+ L23- L150+ Z2103- Z2105-
waiting for L49

L49 is completely useless, as I have written to you on eng.molgen.
(Rathna/Gioiello/Maliclavelli etc.)

Joe B
03-21-2014, 04:59 PM
Hi all,

news on 274480

He is
PF7558+ PF7562+ PF7563+
M269+ L23- L150+ Z2103- Z2105-
waiting for L49

Hi Pillar of fire and welcome to Anthrogenica. Good to see you here.
This area of the phylogenetic Y-tree needs some clarity so L49.1 should be another useful data point. The ISOGG y-tree (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html) has L49.1 on the same level as L23 and L150.1.

R1b1a2a L23/PF6534/S141, L49.1/S349, L150.1/PF6274.1/S351.1
Looks like 274480 has tested L150+, Z2103-, Z2105- by Sanger sequencing too. That is gold standard data.
If I remember correctly from the FTDNA forum, you're in charge of a good number of kits. Anthrogenica has a good community and hopefully some help for your endeavors.

It's unfortunate that you had to read that paranoid and bigoted diatribe on the other forum. There is not an ethnic conspiracy to withhold Y-DNA data. http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?p=20220#p20220


International Society of Genetic Genealogy (2014). Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2014, Version: 9.44, Date: 20 March 2014, http://www.isogg.org/tree/ Date of access: 21, 04, 2014.

Pillar_of_fire
03-21-2014, 06:54 PM
Hi Joe,

yes, I am the same 'fire':)! Thanks for welcoming me!

Y-HAP-Backbone was done in defining Y-haplogroup for 274480 - so he is tested for M269 (M269+) by Sanger sequencing as well as for the ones listed by you.

Joe B
03-21-2014, 07:49 PM
Hi Joe,

yes, I am the same 'fire':)! Thanks for welcoming me!

Y-HAP-Backbone was done in defining Y-haplogroup for 274480 - so he is tested for M269 (M269+) by Sanger sequencing as well as for the ones listed by you.
A well tested individual, that's awesome.
I'm not sure if you know about Chris Morley's Y-SNP subclade predictor (http://ytree.morleydna.com/) or his excellent experimental computer-generated Y-chromosomal phylogeny (http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny). The experimental Y-tree is a very useful tool and cutting edge. From the author's notes.
The R1b-Z2105 portion of this tree is likely inaccurate, owing to the L150 backmutation soon after the initial mutation, and my confusion about how the reported results for this marker should be interpreted. This is a tough area of the tree to figure out. In fact, I think he left 274480 and a lot of us off the tree because of that. Page 44, around line 2101 is the area 272280 should be.

Mike W's R1b-early descendency tree chart (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-%28SNP-based-family-tree%29&p=15405&viewfull=1#post15405) does a good job of showing the cloudy nature of L150.

Your input is needed. :beerchug:http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2309-Favorite-Ale-Favorite-Lager

Pillar_of_fire
03-21-2014, 08:55 PM
Thanks Joe, on the topic on Mike W's R1b, my husband is Z2103+, Z2105+, L584-, L277- all Sanger sequencing. Waiting for Big Y for N112116.

ADW_1981
03-21-2014, 11:50 PM
It's unfortunate that you had to read that paranoid and bigoted diatribe on the other forum. There is not an ethnic conspiracy to withhold Y-DNA data. http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?p=20220#p20220


International Society of Genetic Genealogy (2014). Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2014, Version: 9.44, Date: 20 March 2014, http://www.isogg.org/tree/ Date of access: 21, 04, 2014.

I was wondering how Italy was doing with their 506,000+ Moroccan immigrants, and wondering how many laws have needed to be written, or alleged "human rights" issues have been paid for by tax dollars when Italians have every right to live an Italian way of life in their own country. That 0.1% the alleged "problematic" population must really be causing an issue, who have, as far as I can see, raised very few complaints in the last 2000+ years in Italy.

Joe B
03-22-2014, 02:26 AM
Thanks Joe, on the topic on Mike W's R1b, my husband is Z2103+, Z2105+, L584-, L277- all Sanger sequencing. Waiting for Big Y for N112116.
See Z2103, Z2104, Z2105, Z2106, Z2107, Z2108, Z2109, Z2110 & Sanger sequencing (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2246-Z2103-Z2104-Z2105-Z2106-Z2107-Z2108-Z2109-Z2110-amp-Sanger-sequencing&p=34689&viewfull=1#post34689)

Pillar_of_fire
03-29-2014, 05:38 PM
Back with news! 274480 is L49+, and at the same time L23-. One of the projects admins I wrote to stated (very confidently) that there is a mistake in the L23 result (Geno2.0). In this line of thought should I order SNP L23 to be done by Sanger sequence?

Joe B
03-29-2014, 06:18 PM
Back with news! 274480 is L49+, and at the same time L23-. One of the projects admins I wrote to stated (very confidently) that there is a mistake in the L23 result (Geno2.0). In this line of thought should I order SNP L23 to be done by Sanger sequence?
L49+/L23- is interesting. IMO, Geno 2.0 has good L23 results. The question is with the 23andme chip and L23. That may be why they reverted to L49 for haplogroup assignment. Does this mean that many 23andme results are wrongly labled R1b1a2a based on L49? Or are we just discovering little understood granularity to the R1b-M269 and R1b-23 lines of the ISOGG tree. Maybe these SNP groupings need to be broken up.
-R1b1a2 CTS8728/L1063/PF6480/S13, L265/PF6431, M269, M520/PF6410, PF6475/S17/YSC0000269, PF6485/S3, PF6399/S10
-R1b1a2a L23/PF6534/S141, L49.1/S349, L150.1/PF6274.1/S351.1
Compare 274480 with 126775, another PF7558+, PF7562+, PF7563+ haplotype. 126775 is M269+, P312-, U106-, L23-, L49-, L50-, L51-, L52-, L584-, L11- by Sanger sequencing. One would think that 274480 would test L23- by Sanger sequencing, but at this point who knows?

The YFULL tree has L49.1 and L49.2 on the same level just to make it a little more interesting. Why a L49.1 and L49.2?
-R1b1a2 PF6399/S10 * S17/YSC0000269/PF6475 * M520/PF6410 * S13/L1063/CTS8728/PF6480 * PF6517/M269...
-R1b1a2aS349/PF6276/L49.1/L49.2 * PF6534/S141/L23 * PF6274.2/L150.2/L150/PF6274/L150.1/PF6274.1
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

Pillar_of_fire
04-01-2014, 03:58 PM
I post here in this thread -

we have too samples in R1b that split L23 and L49

274480 is L23- and L49+
N112116 is L23+ and L49-

of course they are on different branches.... but ......

Joe B
04-05-2014, 02:00 AM
Here is an interesting Big Y result.
236409 Sobelman R1b1a2a1 R-L150
Iberian Ashkenaz/ EEIJH - Y-DNA SNP (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/IberianSurnamesofAshkenaz/default.aspx?section=ysnp) FTDNA project
PF7562+ and PF7563+ are posted but no PF7558
Hopefully some SNPs will be found to help clarify this area of the y-tree.

WOLFF éric
06-06-2015, 08:00 PM
I´m classed iberian ashkenaz but what is the origin of R1b-DF13*>7066620-T-C/Y14240/FGC35995 and 14893064-G-A/Y14049/FGC35996 or FGC9682,any information perhaps ? Thanks.

WOLFF éric
07-04-2015, 08:28 PM
I´m classed iberian ashkenaz too from Alsace-Lorraine but what is please the origin of R1b-DF13*>7066620-T-C/Y14240/FGC35995 and 14893064-G-A/Y14049/FGC35996 or FGC9682,any information perhaps ? Perhaps Spain or Near East.Thanks.
B)

TigerMW
07-06-2015, 12:34 PM
I´m classed iberian ashkenaz too from Alsace-Lorraine but what is please the origin of R1b-DF13*>7066620-T-C/Y14240/FGC35995 and 14893064-G-A/Y14049/FGC35996 or FGC9682,any information perhaps ? Perhaps Spain or Near East.Thanks.
B)
Eric, if you haven't already, please start up a thread in the DF13 section (under L21 and under P312). This section of the forum is intended for branches that have broken from the large P312 and U106 branches early.

kinman
08-05-2015, 04:50 PM
Hello,
I am wondering whether or not the status of R-L150 has been resolved. The YFull tree seems to show it as one of the many other SNPs under M-269. However, FTDNA still shows R-L150 as a subclade of R-M269, and R-L23 as a subclade of R-L150. So is FTDNA just slow in updating its haplotree (and YFull quicker), or is there still some debate about whether R-L150 should remain in the tree as a major branch of R-M269.

Joe B
08-06-2015, 06:41 PM
Hello,
I am wondering whether or not the status of R-L150 has been resolved. The YFull tree seems to show it as one of the many other SNPs under M-269. However, FTDNA still shows R-L150 as a subclade of R-M269, and R-L23 as a subclade of R-L150. So is FTDNA just slow in updating its haplotree (and YFull quicker), or is there still some debate about whether R-L150 should remain in the tree as a major branch of R-M269.SNP L150 is still a problem SNP and FTDNA's use of L150 to identify a haplogroup is just plain wrong and a source of many phylogenetic problems with their haplotree.
The R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (aka ht35 Project) Phylogenetic Tree (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/results) has L150.1 on the same phylogenetic level as M269. The phylogenetic problem with L150 is there is R1b-M269+, L23+, L150+ and R1b-M269+, L150+, L23-. L150+, L23- is a backmutation of L150 in the R1b-7562 branch. R1b-M269>PF7562 is a brother to R1b-L23.

kinman
08-06-2015, 09:48 PM
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the information. But as I think about it more, it seems to me that any back mutation is very rare, so it would be even more rare for the back mutation to happen that quickly after the original mutation of L150. Therefore, happening so close together, this makes me wonder if it just looks like a back mutation, but is really something else in this case (such as testing errors in the laboratory).

Joe B
08-06-2015, 10:03 PM
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the information. But as I think about it more, it seems to me that any back mutation is very rare, so it would be even more rare for the back mutation to happen that quickly after the original mutation of L150. Therefore, happening so close together, this makes me wonder if it just looks like a back mutation, but is really something else in this case (such as testing errors in the laboratory).Hey kinman,
L150 results are consistant with Sanger sequencing, SNP array and NGS testing. I'm pretty sure that their are no time constraints on mutations.
That said, R1b-M269>PF7562 or L23-, L150 is an interesting group and branch that is most basal to R1b-M269.
Subgroup: a. R1b-M269: L23- Should order PF7558, PF7562, PF7563 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new?iframe=ycolorized

kinman
08-08-2015, 04:04 AM
Hi Joe,
If different methods show the same results, I agree that would probably tend to rule out testing errors. However, I still have the nagging feeling that there might be something else going on rather than the back mutation explanation. I'm just not quite so sure that there are not some time constraints on mutations. Rather it might be that time constraints on mutations are significant in some cases, but not in others. Genetic genealogy is frankly still in its infancy, so there is still so much to be sorted out and learned about possible time constraints (and where they are very significant or on the other hand sometimes not significant enough to make much difference at all). So it goes.