PDA

View Full Version : Group K): R-L2+ Z49 + Z142 + ......



Acque agitate
04-15-2014, 09:18 AM
Yesterday Pigmon asked me if using the STR, I found groups belonging to R-L2+ Z49 + Z142 +.
The answer is yes, I think I have found several (hand to hand that we will get the results from FGC and Big Y the job becomes easier).
Now I propose one hoping to do something that is to your liking (let me know if I have to stop).

The Group is K; the STR that identify it are the following:
DYS459 = 9-9
DYS437 = 14
DYS448 = 18
YCAII = 21-23

This group consists of:
a) Wilson (256287);
b) Hebert (7735);
c) Bergeron (218791);
d) Ward (65315);
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);


This group is divided into 3 subgroups.

The subgroup K.1) does not have a marker known with certainty (I mean the first STR that has developed).
It consists only of:
c) Bergeron (218791);


The subgroup K.2) is identified by:
DYS390 = 25
DYS534 = 16

And it is constituted by:
a) Wilson (256287);
b) Hebert (7735);


The subgroup K.3) is identified by:
DYS439 = 13 (Hill, 102977 has lost this marker in time)

And it is constituted by:
d) Ward (65315);
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);


The subgroup K.3) is then divided into 2 other subgroups

The subgroup K.3.a) is identified by:
DYS458 = 16

And it is constituted by:
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);

The subgroup K.3.b) does not have a marker known with certainty (I mean the first STR that has developed).
It consists of:
d) Ward (65315);


I think that the results that we have obtained from FCG and Big Y are important not only for their intrinsic value (the fact that we have obtained new groups using the new snp).
I think there will be a much more important derived result as in the future we will be able to identify STR markers typical of each group. Through these STR markers we can analyze the database of the project R- U152 and expand the groups using the statistical science (STR markers).
This work will be useful even for those who can not submit to the test or FGC Big Y cause shortage of funds. In fact, if they are included in these new groups, they will be able to perform only specific tests, much less expensive (I am referring for example to the Thomas Krahn‘s new company: http://shop.yseq.net/index.php ) .

A final consideration (I refer in particular to my friend and compatriot Alessio Bedini): I am convinced that trying subgroups referring only to the number of differences between STR is absolutely wrong and misleading . The most effective method is to look for the STR markers that develop statistically on average every 4/5 snp (using the cover of FCG ).

Rathna
04-15-2014, 09:30 AM
Yes, this work is useful, and it will permit to verify my principles, that mutations happen around the modal, that there is a convergence to the modal as time passes, that sometime a mutation goes for the tangent and that only rarely there are multistep mutations.
I was using these principles already from many years with my Italian friends Belgieri and Grassi who belong to your haplogroup.
Big Y and Full Y will help.
It seems to me demonstrated that also the used Mutation Rate of 0,0022 was wrong at least for a factor of 2.5 or even 3 or more.

And this would explain also why Squecco is closer to the modal as to who belongs to a subclade of his like you posted on another thread, and the true origin of an haplogroup is open yet, if Squecco is an Italian, even though who believes to descend from some Celtic tribes.
All these questions will be solved next in a meaning or in another.

Acque agitate
04-15-2014, 10:24 AM
Yes, this work is useful, and it will permit to verify my principles, that mutations happen around the modal, that there is a convergence to the modal as time passes, that sometime a mutation goes for the tangent and that only rarely there are multistep mutations.
I was using these principles already from many years with my Italian friends Belgieri and Grassi who belong to your haplogroup.
Big Y and Full Y will help.
It seems to me demonstrated that also the used Mutation Rate of 0,0022 was wrong at least for a factor of 2.5 or even 3 or more.

And this would explain also why Squecco is closer to the modal as to who belongs to a subclade of his like you posted on another thread, and the true origin of an haplogroup is open yet, if Squecco is an Italian, even though who believes to descend from some Celtic tribes.
All these questions will be solved next in a meaning or in another.

Hello Rathna, your beliefs about the STR ​​are identical to mine.
As for the other aspects (Italian origin of R-U152) I listen carefully to what you claim, but at the moment I can not share. I think most likely an external source.
In any case, I admire your commitment and your great knowledge of the subject.

Rathna
04-15-2014, 11:04 AM
Hello Rathna, your beliefs about the STR ​​are identical to mine.
As for the other aspects (Italian origin of R-U152) I listen carefully to what you claim, but at the moment I can not share. I think most likely an external source.
In any case, I admire your commitment and your great knowledge of the subject.

Hello Acque Agitate (Trouble Waters for who don't understand Italian and as an old song said), I didn't said that I am sure that all U152 was born in Italy, I said that the question is open, and probably at least some subclades are, but we'll see about others. Anyway the times aren't more those thought till yesterday (by everybody but not by me): we are speaking of about 180 years for 1 SNP at the Big Y level, thus all the hypotheses done by others have crushed down.
I am pretty sure about R1b1/L389+ (we don't know anything either from the subject nor from Richard Rocca about the Geno 2.0 of Mangino after more than three months!), R-M269*, R-L23*, R-L51* (see a thread on this where I think having given all the possible demonstrations).

Acque agitate
04-15-2014, 11:22 AM
Hello Acque Agitate (Trouble Waters for who don't understand Italian and as an old song said), I didn't said that I am sure that all U152 was born in Italy, I said that the question is open, and probably at least some subclades are, but we'll see about others. Anyway the times aren't more those thought till yesterday (by everybody but not by me): we are speaking of about 180 years for 1 SNP at the Big Y level, thus all the hypotheses done by others have crushed down.
I am pretty sure about R1b1/L389+ (we don't know anything either from the subject nor from Richard Rocca about the Geno 2.0 of Mangino after more than three months!), R-M269*, R-L23*, R-L51* (see a thread on this where I think having given all the possible demonstrations).

Hello Rathna, by my calculations I became convinced that R-L2 has at least 5300 years. So I believe that we must take not less than 200 years for 1 snp (Cover Big Y or 100 years cover with FGC).
There are also several historical evidence that confirms this hypothesis.

Rathna
04-15-2014, 02:14 PM
Hello Rathna, by my calculations I became convinced that R-L2 has at least 5300 years.

Probably much more. The Jewish cluster R-U152/L2/L69/L408/L409/L443 has 37 SNPs below L11*, thus 6660YBP (the test has been done on about the same percentage of the Y as to Big Y in the Rootsy et al. 2013). The separation from L23* may come back to 8640YBP.
It is an unique haplotype, even though very differentiated from the others, and this demonstrates that many haplotypes survived by chance, whichever we want to think about their origin, i.e. whether due to an bottleneck or to an introgression from close haplotypes to discover yet.

Pigmon
04-15-2014, 03:45 PM
Acque agitate,

Would it be safe to say that I would fit into the K.3 group with Ward (65315); Foakes (8642); Hill (6342); Hill (102977) because I have these markers or with K.3.a e) Foakes (8642); f) Hill (6342); g) Hill (102977); ?:

My:
DYS 439=13
DYS 458 =16
and
DYS 459=9-10
DYS 437=15
DYS 448=19
YCAII = 19-23
also
DYS 390=23
DYS 534=15
and
DYS 458=16

P.S. I just ordered through FTDNA test: Z12222(Z150).



"The subgroup K.3) is identified by:
DYS439 = 13 (Hill, 102977 has lost this marker in time)

And it is constituted by:
d) Ward (65315);
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);


The subgroup K.3) is then divided into 2 other subgroups

The subgroup K.3.a) is identified by:
DYS458 = 16

And it is constituted by:
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);

The subgroup K.3.b) does not have a marker known with certainty (I mean the first STR that has developed).
It consists of:
d) Ward (65315);"

MitchellSince1893
04-15-2014, 10:54 PM
Pigmon,

I don't think you would be in any of these groups as you don't have the STRs common to all those in the group including Ward 65315 (He's on page 1 of the FTDNA U152 page).

The Group is K; the STR that identify it are the following:
DYS459 = 9-9, You are 9-10
DYS437 = 14, You are 15
DYS448 = 18 You are 19
YCAII = 21-23 You are 19-23

As an aside, looking at Rich's latest SNP tree it appears there may be some correlation between 390=25 and subclade L654 (under Z150), but it's too early to draw any conclusions.

R.Rocca
04-15-2014, 11:02 PM
Hello Acque Agitate (Trouble Waters for who don't understand Italian and as an old song said), I didn't said that I am sure that all U152 was born in Italy, I said that the question is open, and probably at least some subclades are, but we'll see about others. Anyway the times aren't more those thought till yesterday (by everybody but not by me): we are speaking of about 180 years for 1 SNP at the Big Y level, thus all the hypotheses done by others have crushed down.
I am pretty sure about R1b1/L389+ (we don't know anything either from the subject nor from Richard Rocca about the Geno 2.0 of Mangino after more than three months!), R-M269*, R-L23*, R-L51* (see a thread on this where I think having given all the possible demonstrations).

Not that this has anything to do with this topic, but his results are posted. On first view it looks like he is L388+L389+.

Pigmon
04-16-2014, 11:22 AM
Pigmon,

I don't think you would be in any of these groups as you don't have the STRs common to all those in the group including Ward 65315 (He's on page 1 of the FTDNA U152 page).

The Group is K; the STR that identify it are the following:
DYS459 = 9-9, You are 9-10
DYS437 = 14, You are 15
DYS448 = 18 You are 19
YCAII = 21-23 You are 19-23

As an aside, looking at Rich's latest SNP tree it appears there may be some correlation between 390=25 and subclade L654 (under Z150), but it's too early to draw any conclusions.

Good morning Mitchell,

That was my point for posting. I don't fit group K but I do match with group K.3 and group K.3a

Modal K.3 --- Pigmon --- Mitchell

DYS 439=13 --- 13 --- 12


Modal K.3a

Dys 458=16 ---- 16 --- 19



quote from Acque Agitate:

"The subgroup K.3) is identified by:
DYS439 = 13 (Hill, 102977 has lost this marker in time)

And it is constituted by:
d) Ward (65315);
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);


The subgroup K.3) is then divided into 2 other subgroups

The subgroup K.3.a) is identified by:
DYS458 = 16

And it is constituted by:
e) Foakes (8642);
f) Hill (6342);
g) Hill (102977);

The subgroup K.3.b) does not have a marker known with certainty (I mean the first STR that has developed).
It consists of:
d) Ward (65315);"

Pigmon
04-16-2014, 11:39 AM
It doesn't look like you are in Group K either:


The Group is K; the STR that identify it are the following:
DYS459 = 9-9, Pigmon 9-10, Mitchell 9-10
DYS437 = 14, Pigmon 15, Mitchell 15
DYS448 = 18 Pigmon 19, Mitchell 19
YCAII = 21-23 Pigmon 19-23, Mitchell 19-23

Regards,
Curtis

MitchellSince1893
04-16-2014, 12:29 PM
Hi Curtis,

Understood you share some of the STRs of subgroup K3...but if I understood the author correctly you would need 459 437 448 and YCA II matches as well, to be included in any K group or subgroup.

These are the STRs that define group K (and all subgroup) membership as defined in the original post.

Acque agitate
04-16-2014, 01:10 PM
Hi Curtis,

Understood you share some of the STRs of subgroup K3...but if I understood the author correctly you would need 459 437 448 and YCA II matches as well, to be included in any K group or subgroup.

These are the STRs that define group K (and all subgroup) membership as defined in the original post.

What MitchellSince1893 says is correct.

Pigmon
04-16-2014, 04:07 PM
Oh I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I thought only DYS 439=13 for K.3 and DYS458=16 for K.3a were required for inclusion.

My bad.

Curtis