Z39589 - unites DF41, DF49, L1335, Z251, S1051, Y14240

[swid]

Alex Williamson posted the following on the R-L21 Yahoo group last night (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b-L21-Project/conversations/messages/30748):


I've moved some men around on my tree. I've introduced a new INDEL,
Z39589, downstream of DF13 but upstream of a handful of major branches.
As of right now, I know it is upstream of DF41, DF49, L1335, Z251, S1051
and Y14240. I know that DF21, L513, FGC5494, FGC11134 and ZZ10 are all
negative for it. That leaves a large number of smaller branches which I
don't know if they are positive or negative for Z39589.

http://www.ytree.net/

This SNP is an 18 base pair deletion at position 4439911, that is
4439911-TGCAGCTTCACTCCTGAGG-T. There are actually 3 copies of
GCAGCTTCACTCCTGAGG at that position, so this is sort of like a short STR
going from 3 repeats down to 2. Unfortunately, this mutation is not
covered by the BigY. As of right now, if you want it in an NGS test,
you have to order a Full Genomes test.

Not included in the BigY also means that in spite of the large number of
men it represents on my tree (currently 475!), I don't have very much
data for it. Some additional testing will have to be done to position
all of the smaller DF13 branches as well as the men who are currently
DF13*. About half of the big branches are Z39589+, so it could include
a good fraction of the smaller branches as well.

Fortunately, unlike my ZZ SNPs, Z39589 should be able to be Sanger
sequenced. It is already available at YSEQ for ordering:
https://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=23194

FTDNA doesn't know about it yet, but it would be great to have it on
their tree and in their SNP packs as well.

[rms2]

I hope that pans out. The split in DF13 it makes is interesting. My first impression of it is that it represents a kind of north/south divide, but I'm not ready to argue about it.

[TigerMW]

I hope that pans out. The split in DF13 it makes is interesting. My first impression of it is that it represents a kind of north/south divide, but I'm not ready to argue about it.
This kind of resolution we are seeing is pretty neat. It is getting easier and easier to imagine that L21's MRCA (not the formation or initial person in the subclade), DF13/Z2542 and his immediate descendants and DF63 may have almost known each other, or knew of each other at the least.

I wrote to a couple of the academics in the UK last year to suggest they investigate, but I really think there is a story about this. Some will be offended if we call it a dynasty but within a few generations a tremendous and probably hegemonic society made a huge impact in NW Europe. Just because we don't know their names doesn't make them less real.

[rms2]

I know this is repetitive, but I'm just summing up for my own sake. So, thus far we have the Z39589 split in DF13 as follows:

Z39589+

DF41
DF49
L1335
Z251
S1051
Y14240

xZ39589

DF21
L513
FGC5494
FGC11134
ZZ10

The rest of the DF13+ subclades' Z39589 status is yet to be determined.

So, all of these subclades share a common DF13+ ancestor (obviously), but DF41, DF49, L1335, Z251, S1051 and Y14240 share a common Z39589+ ancestor below DF13.

I wonder if any or all of the Z39589- subclades share a common ancestor below DF13. Perhaps not.

[rms2]

Any clue about Z253 and Z255 when it comes to Z39589 status? Z253 is a pretty big subclade.

[Williamson]

Any clue about Z253 and Z255 when it comes to Z39589 status? Z253 is a pretty big subclade.

CTS3386, MC14, Z253 and Z255 all fall under ZZ10. They are all negative for Z39589. ZZ10 is on palindrome P5, so it won't be on the ISOGG tree any time soon.

[jdean]

Any clue about Z253 and Z255 when it comes to Z39589 status? Z253 is a pretty big subclade.

I just did a very quick and dirty text search against some FGC kits posted on the L21 Yahoo site for GCTTCACTCCTGA (very scientific : )

Kit's that had this txt in them were 1 DF41 and 2 L1335, 1 M222, 1 DF49 & 1 Z251

Kit's that didn't include this were 3 CTS4466, 6 DF13, 3 DF21, 3 L513, 2 Z253 & 1 S16264

Couldn't find a Z255 unfortunately.

[rms2]

I just did a very quick and dirty text search against some FGC kits posted on the L21 Yahoo site for GCTTCACTCCTGA (very scientific : )

Kit's that had this txt in them were 1 DF41 and 2 L1335, 1 M222, 1 DF49 & 1 Z251

Kit's that didn't include this were 3 CTS4466, 6 DF13, 3 DF21, 3 L513, 2 Z253 & 1 S16264

Couldn't find a Z255 unfortunately.

Thanks. So for now, it's looking like Z253 is in the negative column.

[rms2]

CTS3386, MC14, Z253 and Z255 all fall under ZZ10. They are all negative for Z39589. ZZ10 is on palindrome P5, so it won't be on the ISOGG tree any time soon.

Ah, thanks.

That answers that question.

It also answers the earlier one about at least some Z39589- subclades sharing their own common ancestor under DF13.

I am behind the times on ZZ10 obviously. I have not created a category for it at the R L21 and Subclades Project because I was unsure of its status (true of a number of new SNPs).

[rms2]

I guess ZZ10 shows up in at least one other y haplogroup, since FTDNA lists it as ZZ10_1. Right? Is it pretty reliable?

[rms2]

I guess ZZ10 shows up in at least one other y haplogroup, since FTDNA lists it as ZZ10_1. Right? Is it pretty reliable?

Well, I see FTDNA has some of our guys also listed as ZZ10_2+, as well. What's the difference?

[seferhabahir]

I hope that pans out. The split in DF13 it makes is interesting. My first impression of it is that it represents a kind of north/south divide, but I'm not ready to argue about it.

Where do you think the divide might be? Is it Northern Europe/Southern Europe? Or British Isles/Continental? Or something else?

[Note: I already changed my signature below to include Z39589]

[George Chandler]

Interesting that it's an InDel.

[rms2]

Where do you think the divide might be? Is it Northern Europe/Southern Europe? Or British Isles/Continental? Or something else?

[Note: I already changed my signature below to include Z39589]

I was thinking north/south in the Isles, but that was just a quick thought. Probably there is more to it than that.

I just got through adding ZZ10 and Z39589 in the R L21 and Subclades Project, as well. I'll probably reorder the subclade listings, too.

I could really save myself a lot of trouble by just lumping all the ZZ10 clades in one big ZZ10 category and all the Z39589 clades in one big Z39589 category, but I won't give in to temptation.

[Williamson]

I guess ZZ10 shows up in at least one other y haplogroup, since FTDNA lists it as ZZ10_1. Right? Is it pretty reliable?

Well, I see FTDNA has some of our guys also listed as ZZ10_2+, as well. What's the difference?

ZZ10 is on one of the two arms of the P5 palindrome, but as of right now it is anyone's guess as to which arm. ZZ10_1 refers to the possible position on the arm closest to the centromere, and ZZ10_2 refers to the same position on the opposite side. Because the regions around those positions are so similar, NGS or Sanger sequence tests can't tell them apart. What they end up with is a mixture of ancestral and derived results.

I don't know why FTDNA reports men as belonging to ZZ10_1. I would prefer they simply say ZZ10+ and retain the inherent ambiguity.

[seferhabahir]

Where do you think the divide might be? Is it Northern Europe/Southern Europe? Or British Isles/Continental? Or something else?

Krahn is currently the lone Z39589* in the Big Tree. I can't quite remember but I think his ancestors were in southeastern part of Europe somewhere?

[rms2]

Krahn is currently the lone Z39589* in the Big Tree. I can't quite remember but I think his ancestors were in southeastern part of Europe somewhere?

Germans transplanted to Transylvania.

[rms2]

ZZ10 is on one of the two arms of the P5 palindrome, but as of right now it is anyone's guess as to which arm. ZZ10_1 refers to the possible position on the arm closest to the centromere, and ZZ10_2 refers to the same position on the opposite side. Because the regions around those positions are so similar, NGS or Sanger sequence tests can't tell them apart. What they end up with is a mixture of ancestral and derived results.

I don't know why FTDNA reports men as belonging to ZZ10_1. I would prefer they simply say ZZ10+ and retain the inherent ambiguity.

Ah, I got it now.

So, do you recommend a category for the guys who are showing ZZ10_1 as their terminal SNP, or should I hold off? Most of them (if not all - I'm going from memory) are also showing ZZ10_2+.

[rms2]

Krahn is currently the lone Z39589* in the Big Tree. I can't quite remember but I think his ancestors were in southeastern part of Europe somewhere?

That could be pretty significant, if it holds, but probably he has some other terminal SNP beneath it.

[seferhabahir]

That could be pretty significant, if it holds, but probably he has some other terminal SNP beneath it.

He has about 40 unique FGC SNPs below Z39589 that haven't been found in anyone else to date. I'm very interested in these kinds of one-offs below DF13.

[Williamson]

So, do you recommend a category for the guys who are showing ZZ10_1 as their terminal SNP, or should I hold off?
I would say go ahead and create a group for them. I think there are close to a half dozen men who are ZZ10* at the moment, maybe more? It's better than being just DF13*.

[rms2]

He has about 40 unique FGC SNPs below Z39589 that haven't been found in anyone else to date. I'm very interested in these kinds of one-offs below DF13.

I forget the name of the area of Germany his family came from before going to Transylvania; I think it was in the Rhineland somewhere. That place and among the Rhenish Romanian transplants (yes, the Transylvanian transplants) would be the places to look for other men who share his terminal SNP.

[rms2]

I would say go ahead and create a group for them. I think there are close to a half dozen men who are ZZ10* at the moment, maybe more? It's better than being just DF13*.

Will do. I will probably put Thomas in a new Z39589 category, as well.

[rms2]

Okay, I added a ZZ10+ category, a Z39589+ category, and reordered the whole shebang to reflect the phylogenetic order (somewhat). It's not alphabetical; there are just too many new SNPs coming down the pike to keep up with being that orderly.

The R L21 and Subclades Project is pretty ponderous now, at over 4,000 members.

[joeflood]

HI Alex, just spotted this, what's the story behind the discovery of this del, which is clearly very important? How come it has been missed till now? I see Krahn is * for it.

[David Mc]

It's funny, I had never really looked at Z251 before. FTDNA's map shows a significant number in NE Europe: 1 in Poland, 2 in Belarus, 1 in Lithuania, 2 in Latvia, and 1 in Russia. There are also 2 in Sweden, 1 in Germany and 1 in Belgium. While the majority are found in the UK and Ireland, that seems to be a significant geographic spread, and the Baltic presence isn't something I would have expected.

[JamesKane]

How come it has been missed till now?

Z39589 isn't covered by Big Y. It's only showing up in Y Elites and WGS tests. Since Big Y has been overwhelmingly popular most of the data points don't have a result. That makes it difficult to spot patterns like this.

[rms2]

It's funny, I had never really looked at Z251 before. FTDNA's map shows a significant number in NE Europe: 1 in Poland, 2 in Belarus, 1 in Lithuania, 2 in Latvia, and 1 in Russia. There are also 2 in Sweden, 1 in Germany and 1 in Belgium. While the majority are found in the UK and Ireland, that seems to be a significant geographic spread, and the Baltic presence isn't something I would have expected.

A lot of that northeastern presence no doubt comes from the Baltic Ashkenazi Z251+ cluster. Elise Friedman and I stumbled on it at about the same time back in, I think, 2009. That was back when we did not know there was a Z251. All we knew was that the cluster was L21+. At the time, Anatole Klyosov did an analysis and concluded the cluster shared a common ancestor in the 14th or 15th century and probably represented descendants of Jews who fled to Lithuania and Poland from the Rhineland following persecution there when the Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague.

I first noticed the cluster when I spotted several men with Ashkenazi surnames who shared the following off-modal marker values: 388=11, 392=14, 459b=9, and 464c=15. I convinced a few of them to test for L21, and they all turned out to be L21+. Once Z251 was discovered, they were all found to be Z251+, as well. I have not kept up with their latest terminal SNP or SNPs downstream of Z251.

[David Mc]

Thanks for the great response, Rich!

[WOLFF éric]

At the time,Anatole Klyosov did an analysis and concluded the cluster shared a common ancestor in the 14th or 15th century and probably represented descendants of Jews who fled to Lithuania and Poland from the Rhineland following persecution there when the Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague.They were in Rhine Valley (for me Strasbourg,Alsace,France) and are going east and come back later as R1b-L21/DF13+/Z39589+/Y14240/FGC35995+ and Y14049/FGC35996+ as iberian ashkenaze. =D

[rms2]

They were in Rhine Valley (for me Strasbourg,Alsace,France) and are going east and come back later as R1b-L21/DF13+/Z39589+/Y14240/FGC35995+ and Y14049/FGC35996+ as iberian ashkenaze. =D

Not all of Z251 are Ashkenazim, only the members of the Baltic Cluster. Besides, Jews in Iberia were known as Sephardim rather than Ashkenazim.

I would not look for a Jewish source for your particular clade, unless you find some documentary or other evidence to indicate that's the case.

[swid]

I already got beaten to posting a reply to Eric (who may have been joking anyway), but your FGC35995 clade (http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=782) hasn't had a common ancestor with the Baltic cluster (http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=478) in a very long time.

I'm sure you noticed it, but Alex' tree recently added another result under FGC35995 (who is slightly more related to the 1kG sample than you are).

[swid]

As Z39589 is on people's minds again (both here and on the R-L21 Yahoo group), I'm a little surprised that there's not (yet) any results at all for Z39589 in the L21 group at YSEQ, especially as I thought the DF13 Reverse Panel had been ordered to confirm which, if any, of the other subclades of DF13 may be below it.

[rms2]

I think Z39589 is one of the cooler discoveries in recent years. Nothing against the non-Z39589 groups, but I really like the collection of clades under Z39589. Hopefully, it's not a big offense to say that.

[WOLFF éric]

So when it´s of celtic origin from where,Spain or Central Europe,i don´t think it´s from the british isles...:\

[rms2]

So when it´s of celtic origin from where,Spain or Central Europe,i don´t think it´s from the british isles...:\

The only Z39589* result we have thus far is Thomas Krahn, and his ancestry is German from the Rhineland, as I recall (from there to Transylvania).

Of course, only ancient y-dna can really come close to answering that question.

[George Chandler]

So when it´s of celtic origin from where,Spain or Central Europe,i don´t think it´s from the british isles...:\

The mutation predates the Celts and is "likely" of Beaker origin. The question then becomes "if" Z39589 was some sort of Iberian or Southern European Beaker. I still suspect it's something that ties them to the original Beakers arriving in either ancient Ireland or what is now Eastern Scotland.

George

[rms2]

The mutation predates the Celts and is "likely" of Beaker origin. The question then becomes "if" Z39589 was some sort of Iberian or Southern European Beaker. I still suspect it's something that ties them to the original Beakers arriving in either ancient Ireland or what is now Eastern Scotland.

George

If the Bell Beaker people spoke an early form of Celtic, then they were the first Celts, but I get what you are saying.

This is just my humble opinion and no attempt to be absolute, dogmatic, or to offend anyone anywhere, but I doubt Z39589 had its origin in Iberia. I think it more likely that it originated in Rhenish Bell Beaker, which, as I recall, was the source of most of the Bell Beaker that went to the Isles.

That might also explain Thomas Krahn's Z39589* result.

[George Chandler]

If the Bell Beaker people spoke an early form of Celtic, then they were the first Celts, but I get what you are saying.

This is just my humble opinion and no attempt to be absolute, dogmatic, or to offend anyone anywhere, but I doubt Z39589 had its origin in Iberia. I think it more likely that it originated in Rhenish Bell Beaker, which, as I recall, was the source of most of the Bell Beaker that went to the Isles.

That might also explain Thomas Krahn's Z39589* result.

My theory for a lot of years has been that L21 originated in Rheine Region so you could be correct. I think you're right that we need the data from ancient remains. I personally think that when you look at the Beaker remains from Eastern Scotland, Ireland and Sicily going back about 4,500 years ago it makes you wonder if there was a southern and Northern or central branch separation with Z39589.

[rms2]

I don't think it is speaking out of school to remark on the fact that Thomas' only str match ever is his own grandfather. So, his Z39589* result is really interesting.

[George Chandler]

I don't think it is speaking out of school to remark on the fact that Thomas' only str match ever is his own grandfather. So, his Z39589* result is really interesting.

Never said it wasn't interesting..I totally agree - what would be important is to locate a German, Romanian etc continental cluster that connects to Thomas's Z39589 result.

George

[rms2]

Never said it wasn't interesting..I totally agree - what would be important is to locate a German, Romanian etc continental cluster that connects to Thomas's Z39589 result.

George

Oh, that post wasn't an objection to anything you wrote. It was me going back to talking about Thomas' asterisk, which strikes me as possibly important.

[Mac von Frankfurt]

From the FGC L21 Tracking and Results thread


You are now R-L21>DF13>Z39589>A4556/BY2868. Your test shows that the A4556 branch is positive for Z39589.

Alex

This is tentative as Alex has not fully analyzed the data.

[Dubhthach]

From the FGC L21 Tracking and Results thread



This is tentative as Alex has not fully analyzed the data.

Nice, welcome to the Z39589 party!

[swid]

Congrats!

Assuming Alex' initial pass of A4556 being underneath Z39589 is confirmed, these are the outstanding DF13 clades on the Big Tree with an unknown Z39589 status:

BY575
FGC21979
15049032 A->G
FGC13780
CTS1751
FGC13742
L371
S16264
Z17300
Z16500
S1026

My offhand guess is that half to two-thirds of those clades will eventually be found to be Z39589+.

[Dubhthach]

On Alex's site he has a total of 1,542 DF13+ men, under Z39589 clades there is a total of 540 men so basically 35% (just over a third) of DF13 men who've done BigY/NGS appear to be Z39589+ that's a big division into DF13! Though obviously having DF49 as a sub-clade helps (Specifically the large number of M222+ men who've done NGS testing)

[Mac von Frankfurt]

Alex has me in a new block R-2777444-T-C which I share with a Welshman along with 9 other unnamed SNPs.

There are ten other men in the A4556 Group on the FTDNA L21 Project and my genetic distance (67) to them has a range of 14 to 24, a mean of 18, and a mode of 16. My GD with the Welshman is 16.

I am the only continental in the group with the rest coming from England, Scotland, and Ireland.

[Dubhthach]

I see Alex sent the following email to the R1b-L21 yahoo list



I have results from Thomas Krahn that confirm that CTS1751, FGC13742, S1026 and L371 are all Z39589+ as well.

So the new standings are:

Branch Number of Men
Z39589 606
ZZ10 292
DF21 261
FGC11134 162
L513 157
FGC5494 59
Unknown 14

For the 14 unknown men, 9 are DF13*, 3 belong to DF13>8744712-T-C and the remaining two are DF13>Z17300.

Z39589 now has more downstream branches than DF13.

Alex

[Williamson]

Just a quick point of clarification, 'unknown' here refers to the status of Z39589. The 9 DF13* men are merely DF13+ but negative for all the other known branches except for Z39589. Some or all of these men may be Z39589+ as well. The same holds true for the DF13>8744712-T-C and DF13>Z17300 branches. More testing is needed.

Z23589 has pretty much absorbed all the small, numerous DF13 branches.

Alex

[swid]

Given that what I thought of as being an overly-optimistic guess of how may DF13 clades would ultimately be Z39589+ turned out to be an underestimate, I now suspect that the number of truly DF13* men will become quite rare (even if most of them simply swap their DF13* status for a Z39589* status instead).

[rms2]

Now we need some ancient Z39589.

[jdean]

Now we need some ancient Z39589.

I think some turned up in Roman York ?

[rms2]

I think some turned up in Roman York ?

I forget the details. Was there some S1051 or something?

[jdean]

I forget the details. Was there some S1051 or something?

Well remembered Rich, took me ages to find Alex's post : )

Link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6263-Genomic-signals-of-migration-and-continuity-in-Britain-before-the-Anglo-Saxons&p=136023&viewfull=1#post136023)

[George Chandler]

Well remembered Rich, took me ages to find Alex's post : )

Link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6263-Genomic-signals-of-migration-and-continuity-in-Britain-before-the-Anglo-Saxons&p=136023&viewfull=1#post136023)

We all share (so far) S1051, FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9657 & FGC9658 located below Z39589. After that point we break off into 13 unique lineages (some may tie in once Y Elite testing is done). Of the 13 different lineages there are over 600 unique, validated SNP's below S1051.

George

[George Chandler]

It's taken more than 2 years of testing but I was able to get 3 defining SNP's of the 13 subgroups (as well as S1051, FGC9655, FGC9661, FGC9657 & FGC9658) listed with ISOGG. It's now listed as R1b1a1a2a1a2c1o.

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

George

[rivergirl]

I see Alex sent the following email to the R1b-L21 yahoo list

" I have results from Thomas Krahn that confirm that CTS1751, FGC13742, S1026 and L371 are all Z39589+ as well.

So the new standings are:

Branch Number of Men
Z39589 606
ZZ10 292
DF21 261
FGC11134 162
L513 157
FGC5494 59
Unknown 14

For the 14 unknown men, 9 are DF13*, 3 belong to DF13>8744712-T-C and the remaining two are DF13>Z17300.

Z39589 now has more downstream branches than DF13.

Alex"

I noticed that The Big Tree no longer has CTS1751, FGC13742, FGC11134, L371 and S1026 listed under Z39589. They are listed P312>L21>DF13>CTS1751 etc.
Has something changed with the Z39589 results??

Frances

[Williamson]

I noticed that The Big Tree no longer has CTS1751, FGC13742, FGC11134, L371 and S1026 listed under Z39589. They are listed P312>L21>DF13>CTS1751 etc.
Has something changed with the Z39589 results??

Frances

Nothing has changed. FGC11134 was never under Z39589. These are the branches I currently have under Z39589:

DF41/S524
DF49/S474
L1335/S530
Z251/S470
CTS1751
FGC13742
L371/S300
S16264
Z16500
S1026
S1051
BY575
FGC13780
A4556
Y14240
BY3925

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1254

Alex

[rivergirl]

Thanks Alex. I was looking at this page, so got a bit confused.
http://www.ytree.net/

Yes FGC11134 was my error, looking at the wrong list....

[Williamson]

Thanks Alex. I was looking at this page, so got a bit confused.
http://www.ytree.net/

That's a good point. I haven't updated the main page. I will do so.

Thanks,
Alex

[swid]

Kit 38226 - Harris (currently listed as DF13* on the Big Tree) mentioned in the L21 FTDNA project's activity feed that he has been found to be Z39589+ by YSEQ.

While it's a sample size of 3, all of the previously DF13* men who have tested their Z39589 status have some back as positive for the deletion.

[swid]

I noticed that another man's SNP Pack results came back as R-Z39589 in the R-L21 Project - kit B98433. He's in the df13-z6171315-A cluster on Mike's spreadsheet; that cluster doesn't ever appear to have been been categorized further beyond being DF13+.

While his results have several no-calls for subclades directly beneath Z39589 - FGC35995, L371, FGC436 (but is also listed as being DF49-), and Z17300 (which is of uncertain Z39589 status) - his cluster doesn't appear to be very close to any other known STR cluster at either 67 or 111 markers.

[WOLFF éric]

Hello mister Williamson,

I have see by Eupedia Scotland for Z35989 and Y14240 it is new ? :3

Regards

[Williamson]

I have see by Eupedia Scotland for Z39589 and Y14240 it is new ?

Y14240 was found in 2015, while Z39589 was found about a year ago in 2016. So they are reasonably new.

Z39589 does not show up in BigY tests, but can be Sanger sequenced and does show up in 1000 genomes results as well as the NGS tests offered by Full Genomes Corp. There are still about a dozen R-DF13* men whose status for Z39589 is unknown.

Alex

[swid]

It appears that FTDNA has determined that Z17300 is actually below Z39589, but didn't update their haplotree correctly.

Two kits in the most recent update of Mike's haplotype file now display as R-BY15955, which on the FTDNA haplotree is a clade below Z39589->BY15941. In addition, one of these kits, 23361, is already on the Big Tree and is listed as Z17300+. However...Z17300 is still listed a separate branch on their haplotree directly below DF13.

[danieldgray]

Z251 closely aligns with locations of the Belgae (Belgium)/Cornovii/Dumnonii a/k/a Damnonii (Cornwall,Wales,Caithness, Orkney, Hebrides, Galway Scotland). Ptolemy uses the name Damnoni for the Dumnonii and there is a Damnoni in Crete that is currently the site of a Mesolithic archeological excavation. The Fir Bolg of Irish history have been said to be tied to the Belgae and Dumnonii. The Fir Bolg were said to have been in Greece and later driven out of Ireland toward more Northern areas. Separately, the history and locations of the Goths, who were in Sweden, Baltics, France and the Iberian Penninsula, has similar patterns with the Belgae. Finally, MacKall and McDonald MacDomnhall/Raghnall, are included in FGC11986 along with Olofsen from Sweden and Temerman from Belgium. MacDonald descends from Gothfried (perhaps a clue for Goth) and Raghnall is sometimes associated with Ragnarr the Viking from King of Swedes and Danes.Perhaps the Goths/Jutes a/k/a Gutes/Cimbry/Belgae/and Damnonii/Danish Vikings were all one people which led to the various sub-groupings, including the Royal Stewarts, Scotish Cluster, Ui Maine, Z251 etc falling under z39589.

[Tolan]

I just ordered Z39589 at yseq.
I hope to have a positive result ...

[Tolan]

I just ordered Z39589 at yseq.
I hope to have a positive result ...

Negative....

The big branches of the DF13 tree are cut down.
There are only a few twigs left: L280, BY19419, BY23392, BY23433, BY34749.
22283

NOTA:
There seems to be an inconsistency in the DNA L21 project table:
the KIT # 376891 is in L21> DF13> BY34749> Y30355
and KIT # 536507 is in L21> DF21> DF25> FGC5780> Y30355.

How to explain this?

[rms2]

Well, at least it seems less and less likely that your y-dna ancestor was some sort of transplanted Briton.

[Dubhthach]

At this stage your options are quite restricted, perhaps it's time to start saving for the next BigY sale (say the Christmas one) ;)

[Tolan]

At this stage your options are quite restricted, perhaps it's time to start saving for the next BigY sale (say the Christmas one) ;)

The Y Elite 2.1 on fullgenome is perhaps better?
There is not much difference in price with the Big Y ...

Can anyone confirm that the Y Elite 2.1 test is a real "full"?

No doubt I will do this test in the near future, but I prefer to wait a little...

[Edwalden]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to both the forum and DNA ancestry! This post is a good read and raises questions from my own perspective. Having just taken the Big Y 700 test my terminal Y DNA has been put as R-Z39589+ (thus posting here!) R-FCG35996+ R-BY23382.

I'm a little disappointed that I have no DNA matches, but I suppose this is not unusual until the whole of Devon (where my paternal ancestors are from) also carry out the Big Y?

Just wondering why I cannot find out much information on my R-FCG35996 strand (never mind my terminal strand) is this because not many people has been tested?

[rms2]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to both the forum and DNA ancestry! This post is a good read and raises questions from my own perspective. Having just taken the Big Y 700 test my terminal Y DNA has been put as R-Z39589+ (thus posting here!) R-FCG35996+ R-BY23382.

I'm a little disappointed that I have no DNA matches, but I suppose this is not unusual until the whole of Devon (where my paternal ancestors are from) also carry out the Big Y?

Just wondering why I cannot find out much information on my R-FCG35996 strand (never mind my terminal strand) is this because not many people has been tested?

Here (https://www.genetichomeland.com/welcome/dnapedigree.asp?RecordID=1239209) is what I found at Genetic Homeland on the pedigree of your terminal SNP, BY23382.

Note that it says FGC35996 is a "Small branch under L21 Z39589". Probably your SNP is such a new discovery that not that much is known yet, and matches await more test results. Is there a way to encourage more men from Devon to test with FTDNA?

[TigerMW]

Last week I updated the R-L21 Descendants Tree Overview Chart.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about/results

I count 29 direct (basal) branches from R1b-L21>DF13>Z39589