PDA

View Full Version : Interesting structure under DF17 being revealed by Big Y



breckenheimer
04-21-2014, 12:53 AM
With five of the DF17 results in for Big Y there is some interesting groupings forming. Below DF17 are two groups: 8849102=G and 15786167. Below 8849102 is 14953259. Below 14953259 is S1041.

I also noticed that there may be some STR correlations for some of these new clades:

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102*"
Burness----CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259*"
Menge------CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259">S1041
Durkin------CDYb=39, DYS389i=14
Mulvihill----CDYb=39, DYS389i=14

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"15786167"
Hart ----DYS464c = 16
Tran ----DYS464c = 16

jmulvihill
04-24-2014, 02:42 PM
We also have several reported DF17 in the BritainsDNA group of 2000 results provided by Dr. Jim Wilson a couple of weeks ago. I've also seen two Italians reported (maybe YFull?).
Going thru the BritainsDNA data, I could only identify one sample that is S1041 (sample 628). If we could get position info on the SNPs reported, we could add another 7 folks to our DF17 chart. Competitive fears probably rule that out.

razyn
04-24-2014, 04:57 PM
Dr. Wilson released the Chromo2 position info shortly after the 2000 results. We've been mining it for new SNP tests.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/46ubi9qntb2un03/BritainsDNAchromo2positions.xlsx

jmulvihill
04-24-2014, 07:01 PM
I can't find any correspondence between those positions and the BigY. They may use a different reference.

razyn
09-01-2014, 11:12 AM
With five of the DF17 results in for Big Y there is some interesting groupings forming. Below DF17 are two groups: 8849102=G and 15786167. Below 8849102 is 14953259. Below 14953259 is S1041.

I also noticed that there may be some STR correlations for some of these new clades:

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102*"
Burness----CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259*"
Menge------CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259">S1041
Durkin------CDYb=39, DYS389i=14
Mulvihill----CDYb=39, DYS389i=14

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"15786167"
Hart ----DYS464c = 16
Tran ----DYS464c = 16

I want to refresh this thread, toward the goal of reorganizing the R1b-DF27 project a bit to reflect growing knowledge (not necessarily MY knowledge, but whoever has it, it's growing) about the positioning of DF17. I think it's going to require at least a nod in the direction of Z274. The DF27 project was set up without a category for Z274, because nobody was getting Sanger-sequenced test results for it; but now that FTDNA has that new haplotree, at least one kit (N67378) in DF27 is now displaying Z274 as "terminal."

Trying to sort it with the little plus and minus signs in SNP results (known to, and displayed by, the FTDNA computer) is making me a little crazy. I suspect that the most productive sources are going to be the Big Y comparisons posted to the Yahoo group's files (mainly by David Carlisle), and the Chromo2 results for 2000 cases released last Feb. by Jim Wilson. Some of you DF17 guys may be using a structure based on other analyses [including YFull, Chris Morley's experimental tree (last made public in Feb. 2014, though his ClarifYDNA service is still working on that if you have membership and access), ISOGG, older diagrams like Thomas Krahn's Draft Tree or the ones Rich Rocca did in 2011]. They don't agree with each other; and I don't think they agree with the data we can now see in the two sources I just called productive. But to make our project's grouping sequence hierarchical and productive, somebody needs to go crosseyed studying the various (and often conflicting) sources better than I have done. I'm not sure it's all reliable (i.e. some chip or other test may just be calling one of these SNPs inconsistently: Z274, Z196 or DF17). Does the issue have to do with no-calls at DF17 being listed as DF17- some of the time? And if so, is Z274 even phylogenetically relevant?

A couple of weekends ago I met Mike Durkin at the I4GG conference in Maryland. We got to discuss DF17 very casually, in my case from fuzzy memory rather than firm knowledge or conviction; and btw we had lunch with Thomas Krahn, but there was sort of a dense fog of input rolling in from a wide variety of sources -- most of it unrelated to DF17. I think we have enough DF17 cases, with potential subclades, that we need to get you guys sorted right. And not incidentally, color-coded more like your closer neighbors in the Z195/Z196 vicinity. Whoever we turn out to be.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Webb
09-01-2014, 12:45 PM
I want to refresh this thread, toward the goal of reorganizing the R1b-DF27 project a bit to reflect growing knowledge (not necessarily MY knowledge, but whoever has it, it's growing) about the positioning of DF17. I think it's going to require at least a nod in the direction of Z274. The DF27 project was set up without a category for Z274, because nobody was getting Sanger-sequenced test results for it; but now that FTDNA has that new haplotree, at least one kit (N67378) in DF27 is now displaying Z274 as "terminal."

Trying to sort it with the little plus and minus signs in SNP results (known to, and displayed by, the FTDNA computer) is making me a little crazy. I suspect that the most productive sources are going to be the Big Y comparisons posted to the Yahoo group's files (mainly by David Carlisle), and the Chromo2 results for 2000 cases released last Feb. by Jim Wilson. Some of you DF17 guys may be using a structure based on other analyses [including YFull, Chris Morley's experimental tree (last made public in Feb. 2014, though his ClarifYDNA service is still working on that if you have membership and access), ISOGG, older diagrams like Thomas Krahn's Draft Tree or the ones Rich Rocca did in 2011]. They don't agree with each other; and I don't think they agree with the data we can now see in the two sources I just called productive. But to make our project's grouping sequence hierarchical and productive, somebody needs to go crosseyed studying the various (and often conflicting) sources better than I have done. I'm not sure it's all reliable (i.e. some chip or other test may just be calling one of these SNPs inconsistently: Z274, Z196 or DF17). Does the issue have to do with no-calls at DF17 being listed as DF17- some of the time? And if so, is Z274 even phylogenetically relevant?

A couple of weekends ago I met Mike Durkin at the I4GG conference in Maryland. We got to discuss DF17 very casually, in my case from fuzzy memory rather than firm knowledge or conviction; and btw we had lunch with Thomas Krahn, but there was sort of a dense fog of input rolling in from a wide variety of sources -- most of it unrelated to DF17. I think we have enough DF17 cases, with potential subclades, that we need to get you guys sorted right. And not incidentally, color-coded more like your closer neighbors in the Z195/Z196 vicinity. Whoever we turn out to be.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Dick, on the Semargl site, every DF17 Geno 2.0 results displays Z274 as a positive snp for all the testers. Likewise, all of the North/South cluster testers also show it as a positive snp. I think it highly unlikely these are false. However, the key would be to try and figure out how far down from Z195 it is and how far up from Z220 and DF17 it is.

razyn
09-01-2014, 12:53 PM
The positioning of Z295 and S21184 is not irrelevant to this discussion, either. And I don't think the Semargl site is very close, on that. One of several reasons I've mostly been looking elsewhere, of late. But the general idea is to try to get us on the same page, whoever may have the better data or algorithms to play with.

Webb
09-01-2014, 04:07 PM
This is what we do know. Z274 can not be equivalent to Z195 as none of the L165 or SRY2627 guys have it. It can not be equivalent to DF17 as the north/south guys have Z274 but not DF17 and vice versa. So the next question is this, is DF17 north/south cluster. How old is DF17? When do DF17 and say Z209/Z210/Z220 share a common ancestor? Where is Mark Jost when you need him?

razyn
09-02-2014, 01:19 AM
So the next question is this, is DF17 north/south cluster.

No, that cluster was described originally on the basis of three unusual STR marker values (not SNPs) -- and DF17 guys typically have none of the three. They were DYS437=14, DYS448=18, and GATAH4=10. All of the groupings under Z220 have those, at least modally -- except my little L484+ grouplet, or subcladie of CTS4065. And that's because we have a back-mutation on GATAH4, to the ancestral 11. Several M153s also have a back-mutation there, but not enough to shift the group's modal.


Where is Mark Jost when you need him?

Maybe in Ireland? I haven't seen him in the vicinity of DF27 for about a year, anyhow. That's about when he and Mike Www got all excited over Big Y, etc. news for L21 and its subclades -- chacun son got. One of these days, I hope to broaden his horizons; but it would be better to do it after we actually know something, rather than just conversationally. So, we are testing a lot, a process that consumes some money and lots of time. Stonehenge wasn't built in a day.

But knowing something does not, technically, require recognition -- by ISOGG, or the FTDNA haplotree, or really anything. Those are goals, not prerequisites. Mainly it requires testing, and competent analysis of the test results. We're working in that patch, or sincerely trying to.

razyn
09-02-2014, 01:25 PM
The DF27 project was set up without a category for Z274, because nobody was getting Sanger-sequenced test results for it; but now that FTDNA has that new haplotree, at least one kit (N67378) in DF27 is now displaying Z274 as "terminal."

Just a footnote about Z274. I have a little documentation of [I]why Z274 was not being Sanger sequenced (and therefore we had no results for it visible in our projects for a couple of years after its discovery). Inclusion of Z274 on the Geno2 chip array in the fall of 2012 made it visible -- after results from that test started showing it -- in a little string of other Z-SNPs whose positions we understood better.

Anyway, I had asked the FTDNA Help Desk about the status of several such SNPs in Feb. 2012, and received this reply March 2, 2012:


Hi Richard,

I've asked the lab for another update on the specific SNPs that you were interested in and this is the information I was provided:

Z274 is almost impossible to design primers for because it's in a highly repetitive region so this will not be available any time soon.
Z294 is also tricky, must be designed manually, and will not be available soon.
Z209, Z214 and Z278 are still being tested but should be ready within the next few weeks.

I hope this helps!

Well, it did, in that my order for the newly available Z209 was placed the same day -- March 2, 2012. And Z220 five days later; and Z216 March 27. I guess it might be worthwhile to paste in my Feb. 18, 2012 query (following up on my earlier request of Oct. 13, 2011), to which the above was the Help Desk response:


I'd like to know if there is any hope of an available SNP test for Z294, or indeed any of the 25 new SNPs under Z196. There was chatter on DNA-Forums at the end of June [2011] to the effect that the subclades of Z196 could be tested sometime in July. I keep looking at your Advanced Orders menu of SNPs, a few times a week, and there still aren't any. There is a particularly large group of clients whose asterisk could be removed by discovery of a SNP encompassing the "North/South Cluster" of R-P312, identified from STR off-modals by Ken Nordtvedt several years ago.

I concluded that Feb. followup by citing the DNA-Forums thread on which we had been discussing our Z196 test results and issues. I've deleted that part of my Help Desk message -- because DNA-Forums shut down a couple of years ago, and links to its old messages don't work.

Webb
09-02-2014, 01:58 PM
Just a footnote about Z274. I have a little documentation of [I]why Z274 was not being Sanger sequenced (and therefore we had no results for it visible in our projects for a couple of years after its discovery). Inclusion of Z274 on the Geno2 chip array in the fall of 2012 made it visible -- after results from that test started showing it -- in a little string of other Z-SNPs whose positions we understood better.

Anyway, I had asked the FTDNA Help Desk about the status of several such SNPs in Feb. 2012, and received this reply March 2, 2012:



Well, it did, in that my order for the newly available Z209 was placed the same day -- March 2, 2012. And Z220 five days later; and Z216 March 27. I guess it might be worthwhile to paste in my Feb. 18, 2012 query (following up on my earlier request of Oct. 13, 2011), to which the above was the Help Desk response:



I concluded that Feb. followup by citing the DNA-Forums thread on which we had been discussing our Z196 test results and issues. I've deleted that part of my Help Desk message -- because DNA-Forums shut down a couple of years ago, and links to its old messages don't work.

Z274 is actually available a la carte at FTDNA.

razyn
09-02-2014, 02:07 PM
Z274 is actually available a la carte at FTDNA.

But that's pretty recent; I'm talking about why we ignored Z274 in July 2013 when the DF27 project groups were set up (and had ignored it previously).

mairtin
09-20-2014, 09:06 PM
If my last downstream SNP is Z274 does that fit me in to DF17.
As Scotland's DNA tested me negative for df17.

Webb
09-20-2014, 10:31 PM
If my last downstream SNP is Z274 does that fit me in to DF17.
As Scotland's DNA tested me negative for df17.

Probably not if you already tested DF17. So far DF17 and Z220/Z210/Z209 are under Z274. Typically in the Geno 2.0 test if you had Z274+ you would then be DF17 or one of the various snps below Z210. Which company did you test with? You quite possibly might be the first Z274* that I know of. If that is the case then there could be a yet unknown branch under Z274 that runs parallel to DF17 and the Z220 group.

razyn
09-21-2014, 02:55 AM
If my last downstream SNP is Z274 does that fit me in to DF17.
As Scotland's DNA tested me negative for df17.
I looked at your other post, and I see they called S229 (Z274) positive, but I have no idea what they might have called negative. It's also not obvious to me that you had a Chromo2 test -- did you? At the moment, I think there are seven SNPs (with nearly twice that many names) on the same level as Z220, and ten on the same level as DF17. Jim Wilson named some, but by no means all, of those positions. It's conceivable that you have some of them; anyway that's one way to explore for no-calls, bad cells or reads on the chip, and a few other problems.

Apart from that possibility, or those possibilities (i.e. DF17 by any other name has the same descendants) -- I agree with Billy Webb; maybe you are Z274* (aka S229*, Z272*, perhaps others yet unnamed). And that would probably only mean that we haven't yet discovered your (third, so far) branch under Z274/S229.

mairtin
04-23-2015, 02:13 PM
Hi Razyn thanks for the reply. Sorry for this late post on my SNPs. I found the SNPs that I am negative. Z209 Z278 Z207 CTS2187 Z225 Z268 Z214 L745 Z229 Z220 L165 L1335 Z211 L226 L238 this test was taken just before chrono 2 came out from Scotland's DNA

razyn
04-24-2015, 04:22 PM
I don't see any indication that they called you negative for DF17 (which they call S455). If they didn't, probably that is the best guess. DF17 has a few subclades, also.

mairtin
04-30-2015, 05:22 PM
Thanks Razyn will give chrono 2 a go to see if I test positive for S455

Connell Warrior
01-02-2016, 08:24 PM
With five of the DF17 results in for Big Y there is some interesting groupings forming. Below DF17 are two groups: 8849102=G and 15786167. Below 8849102 is 14953259. Below 14953259 is S1041.

I also noticed that there may be some STR correlations for some of these new clades:

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102*"
Burness----CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259*"
Menge------CDYb=39

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"8849102">"14953259">S1041
Durkin------CDYb=39, DYS389i=14
Mulvihill----CDYb=39, DYS389i=14

DF27>Z195>Z274>DF17>"15786167"
Hart ----DYS464c = 16
Tran ----DYS464c = 16

I got my Big Y test results today, full Irish from way back when and I'm R-S1041, my Connells came to Meath from Connaught in the 1650s, no relation to the O Connells by what the dna is saying. Paul.

razyn
01-25-2016, 05:50 PM
I just reorganized the DF17 groups, y'all might want to check it out. (Sign in at FTDNA before loading or refreshing the display, or you won't see everybody.) BigY and DF27 SNP Pack results are causing all sorts of funny SNP names to appear, and that makes it more confusing to leave all the DF17 guys in one big pile. It's still a work in progress, but better than it was.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-DF27?iframe=ycolorized

Connell Warrior
01-25-2016, 08:45 PM
Very tidy now, good job! I'm all on my own at R-S1041, however on the big tree I was put as FGC14112, along with Meehan and Durkin. I do find all this quite exiting and very interesting, I'm sure this next few years we will find out a lot more!
Paul

razyn
01-25-2016, 09:49 PM
I'm all on my own at R-S1041, however on the big tree I was put as FGC14112, along with Meehan and Durkin.
Even at the present (kind of low) level of sorting, I notice that you have several strong off-modals, even from Meehan and Durkin. None of these four is on a "fast mutator" (red background for the STR name): DYS19=14, DYS392=11, DYS447=22, DYS617=13.

I'm guessing there is still some SNP lurking in your BAM file that distinguishes you from the rest of your subclade. Unless your father worked at Oak Ridge, or something (like my father-in-law).

Connell Warrior
01-26-2016, 12:29 AM
Even at the present (kind of low) level of sorting, I notice that you have several strong off-modals, even from Meehan and Durkin. None of these four is on a "fast mutator" (red background for the STR name): DYS19=14, DYS392=11, DYS447=22, DYS617=13.

I'm guessing there is still some SNP lurking in your BAM file that distinguishes you from the rest of your subclade. Unless your father worked at Oak Ridge, or something (like my father-in-law).
Ha ha, no he never worked there! I submitted to yfull but haven't heard back from them yet, I'm hoping they can pin a rough date on this!

razyn
02-14-2016, 03:06 PM
Ha ha, no he never worked there! I submitted to yfull but haven't heard back from them yet, I'm hoping they can pin a rough date on this!
I'll link your post about that, since Breckenheimer started this thread and he (among others) shares your FGC14124. Which we already knew from the Big Tree; I'm just picking up loose ends here. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5272-DF17-in-Ireland&p=140573&viewfull=1#post140573

Connell Warrior
03-02-2016, 12:51 PM
Theres a bit more information from Y Full coming through, its listing myself and Mike Durkin as R-M428, it gives an age estimation of between 250-1600 ybp, and rounds it to 700. Then it says age by all samples 550-1600 rounding it to 900ybp. I just thought it was interesting to get some lower dates rather than 5000 years ago!
Paul.

Connell Warrior
04-13-2016, 11:59 AM
I have some STR variants info starting to come through on Y Full. There are 16 private mutations below R-M428, they estimated the age of my match to another R-M428 man as around 900 years, so does this mean my line has 16 mutations in 900 years? So that's roughly one every couple of generations? It says the results of the private mutations will come later. I find this analysis fascinating and well worth the $49 fee.

razyn
04-17-2016, 05:27 PM
Working on the results from very recent SNP packs (one DF27, one M343) it has come to my attention that a couple of branches below DF17 (per Alex's Big Tree) aren't on the FTDNA haplotree, and presumably are being missed by the original versions of these SNP packs. OK at the M343 level, those people should expect to need another pack -- but not good in the case of the DF27 pack, if that's the only one available to you guys. DF17 has no separate project, and not a very loud voice at the lab, I suspect. I'll paste in something from a comment I made today on the "My Groups" discussion page for DF27:

[The DF27 SNP pack is] for anybody who is DF27+, Z195- (hundreds of our project members). The single exception I know of is DF17 -- which, with its subclades, is also tested on the DF27 pack, though it is Z195+. That's left over from the prior release of a Z209 pack (and DF17 isn't downstream of Z209). [Edit: DF17 also has at least two branches that aren't being tested by the DF27 pack, because they were discovered more recently, or not in BigY tests. This needs to be addressed when the DF27 pack is updated. One is Y14050; and a couple of samples from 1000 Genomes point to another, although its SNP has not yet been identified.] http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=624&star=false

Just in case you want to agitate about it. I can't make recommendations on an FTDNA platform about how to address this issue by using other companies.

George Chandler
04-17-2016, 06:15 PM
What's interesting is that S1041 is also found under my S1051 group (not connected to your S1041 mutation). It goes to show why testing "multiple" SNP's to validate a line is so important.

George

Connell Warrior
05-08-2016, 10:18 AM
I was just having a look on Y Full and see that Mr McDonald has now joined myself and Mike Durkin in R-M428, I'm pretty certain that this particular McDonald would have originated in Ireland.

breckenheimer
05-08-2016, 11:48 AM
I was just having a look on Y Full and see that Mr McDonald has now joined myself and Mike Durkin in R-M428, I'm pretty certain that this particular McDonald would have originated in Ireland.

Is this the same McDonald that shows on the Big Tree (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=30) as from Scotland? Likely earlier origins would be from Ireland since the Scots came from Ireland in the Dl Riata migration from Ireland to Scotland in the 7th century A.D.

Y-Full gives a very recent TMRCA -- between 1450 and 600 years before present for R-M428. Perhaps McDonald's ancestor was part of the Dal Riata, while that of Connell, Mulvihill, Meehan and Durkin were not.

Connell Warrior
05-08-2016, 12:25 PM
Yes it is the same McDonald. My theory, although maybe way out is that a common ancestor Roman soldier settled in Ireland in the 300s, his descendant was our common R-M428 in around the year 1050, just before surnames started in the 1100s, McDonald's ancestor would have moved over to Scotland around this time, unless it was later and he adopted one of the locals names. Just a thought and maybe totally wrong!
Paul

Connell Warrior
05-10-2016, 11:41 PM
I have just got some newer STR match results saying Jim McDonald is a close match, it says a distance of 0.099 and 28 differences, whereas its 46 differences to Mike Durkin and 55 to Trevor Joyce. Can someone that knows much more about this please explain what this means?
Thanks, Paul.

razyn
12-19-2017, 10:09 PM
Several of you DF17 guys have been mentioned today on a very active current thread about the Irish DNA Atlas project. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5079-Irish-DNA-Atlas-Preliminary-Results&p=326252&viewfull=1#post326252

Connell Warrior
03-18-2018, 10:54 AM
Several of you DF17 guys have been mentioned today on a very active current thread about the Irish DNA Atlas project. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5079-Irish-DNA-Atlas-Preliminary-Results&p=326252&viewfull=1#post326252

Thanks Razyn, not been on for a bit but will catch up!

alvaroabascal
04-01-2018, 06:09 PM
My BigY results are up. In the DF27 project I now appear as DF17>FGC14113>BY31082. I just ordered the BAM file. What do you recommend me to do now? Wait for the file and upload it to YFull? Am I missing anything?

Connell Warrior
06-18-2018, 11:53 AM
My BigY results are up. In the DF27 project I now appear as DF17>FGC14113>BY31082. I just ordered the BAM file. What do you recommend me to do now? Wait for the file and upload it to YFull? Am I missing anything?

Contact Alex Williamson at the Big Tree and send him the BAM file. Y Full too but it costs $49 from what I remember but great detail from it.

jaumemiquel
06-09-2019, 11:58 AM
Greeting everyone,
I'm R1b/M269/P312/Z195/DF17 from Spain. does anyone have any further finds on the insitu theory that this haplogroup appeared in northeast Spain (present day Catalonia)? My ancestors came from that area in northern Spain during the reconquest of balearic Islands in XIII. It appears that DF17 may have appeared in catalonia during the pre-celtic incursions from central Germany into Spain during Beaker culture movements and post waves...any advise? thanks so much.

Webb
06-10-2019, 02:56 PM
Greeting everyone,
I'm R1b/M269/P312/Z195/DF17 from Spain. does anyone have any further finds on the insitu theory that this haplogroup appeared in northeast Spain (present day Catalonia)? My ancestors came from that area in northern Spain during the reconquest of balearic Islands in XIII. It appears that DF17 may have appeared in catalonia during the pre-celtic incursions from central Germany into Spain during Beaker culture movements and post waves...any advise? thanks so much.

Hi jaumemiquel. Your synopsis is probably as good as it gets with what information we have currently. According to Yfull, DF17 has a TMRCA date of 3600 ybp, where as, Alex Williamson's Ytree has a formed date of 1700 BC. So both sites are fairly close. DF17 is currently found all over western Europe. Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Scotland, and Britain. Which company did you test with?

jaumemiquel
06-10-2019, 04:41 PM
FMTDNA, they gave me DF 17 S1319S11695BY907S1306BY31055FT44718Z29695BY31056Z3 2165S1313AM00492CTS13028 CTS7768

Chaz
10-26-2019, 06:54 PM
Very tidy now, good job! I'm all on my own at R-S1041, however on the big tree I was put as FGC14112, along with Meehan and Durkin. I do find all this quite exiting and very interesting, I'm sure this next few years we will find out a lot more!
Paul

Well, there are now 2 of us.

I presume we have been emailing each other already :-)

Chaz
11-10-2019, 09:43 AM
Well, there are now 2 of us.

I presume we have been emailing each other already :-)

And mine has since changed - I am now marked as R-Y64389.

Chaz
05-17-2021, 04:31 PM
And mine has changed again, been pushed further down - now with FGC15275 where I am currently the only person.

Webb
05-17-2021, 08:48 PM
And mine has changed again, been pushed further down - now with FGC15275 where I am currently the only person.

Hi Chaz. Is your MDKA Irish as well?

qallezan65
07-02-2021, 12:13 AM
Hi! I had posted in the other DF17 thread, but I figured this would fit here as well. My dad did a Big Y test a few months ago, and his haplogroup was confirmed to be R-Y48060 (downstream of R-FGC14126). He's from Cuba, but his great-grandfather was from Galicia, Spain. On FamilyTreeDNA, he shares his haplogroup with men from England and Ireland.