Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: R1b-Z2103 & R1b Early Subclades project

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,323
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Post R1b-Z2103 & R1b Early Subclades project

    I renamed the R1b Basal subclades project to the "Z2103 & R1b Early Subclades" project

    The URL is still the same, R1b Basal subclades, but the majority of the project work is on Z2103 and this will make it easier to find for those people. The word "basal" is appropriate but most people don't understand what that means.

    The Y Classic report has been restructured to an objective subgrouping method. Every branch on the FTDNA haplotree is now represented as a subgroup. I use the SNP path / bread crumb trail method of naming each branch.

    This gives you a view of ancient clade mates that are beyond FTDNA matching limits.

    The subgroups are indexed to conform to the same order as the FTDNA tree.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...R;name=R-Z2103

    Here is the Y classic report. Z2103 starts at index number 30000 and is color coded in shades of green.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    Other early branching subclades are still supported equally with the new detailed breakouts. These subclades include V88, PF7589, etc.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     Mis (12-17-2020),  parasar (12-17-2020),  rms2 (12-17-2020),  Silesian (12-17-2020)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    395
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    British, German, Italian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z255
    mtDNA (M)
    HV4a1
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-U106

    England Italy Germany Scotland Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerMW View Post
    I renamed the R1b Basal subclades project to the "Z2103 & R1b Early Subclades" project

    The URL is still the same, R1b Basal subclades, but the majority of the project work is on Z2103 and this will make it easier to find for those people. The word "basal" is appropriate but most people don't understand what that means.

    The Y Classic report has been restructured to an objective subgrouping method. Every branch on the FTDNA haplotree is now represented as a subgroup. I use the SNP path / bread crumb trail method of naming each branch.

    This gives you a view of ancient clade mates that are beyond FTDNA matching limits.

    The subgroups are indexed to conform to the same order as the FTDNA tree.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...R;name=R-Z2103

    Here is the Y classic report. Z2103 starts at index number 30000 and is color coded in shades of green.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    Other early branching subclades are still supported equally with the new detailed breakouts. These subclades include V88, PF7589, etc.
    Good work, Mike. We all appreciate the time you put into this.
    yDNA: R1b-BY17850 (England?)
    Maternal grandfather (MDKA: Johannes Nicholas Schaefer, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) - yDNA: R1b-U106, mtDNA: T2b
    Maternal grandmother (MDKA: Angelina Centrella, Avellino, Campania, Italia) - mtDNA: HV4a1


    Administrator for Hidden Content , Hidden Content , and Hidden Content

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kopfjäger For This Useful Post:

     Mis (12-17-2020),  rms2 (12-17-2020),  Silesian (12-17-2020)

  5. #3
    Banned
    Posts
    13,888
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-Z253>BY93500
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    I appreciate your work, too, Mike. You've done a lot for all of us over the years.

    Here's something that has troubled me for quite a while, which has nothing to do with you. It's the idea that modern men of the 21st century can belong to "basal" or "early" subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup R, or of any haplogroup, for that matter.

    That notion is misleading, because all Y-DNA haplogroups with surviving members are equally "basal" and equally "early". There aren't any modern men who are Y-DNA throwbacks to the trunk or even the branches of the phylogenetic tree. We're all out on modern twigs. It's just that some of those twigs are known and have been named, and others have not, because not enough representatives have been subjected to NGS Y-DNA testing.

    Not too many years ago, most of us R1b guys were "R1b-M269", way back down the tree from where we are now known to be. How "basal" and "early" we were!

    I remember one goofy guy on Rootsweb who expressed the opinion that M269 was as far as it went for most of us, and that R1b resolution would never get any further or better than what was known back then: S28 (U152), S21 (U106), M222, and M153.

    Most of us were consigned to what was regarded back then as "Cro-Magnon" status.

    Hilarious to think of it now, and some of us knew even back then that it was ridiculous.

    So, anyway, I don't like designators like "basal" and "early", unless they are being applied to archaeogenetic samples from truly basal or early skeletons like Mal'ta Boy. Those monikers don't fit any modern man.
    Last edited by rms2; 12-17-2020 at 12:34 PM.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     DgidguBidgu (12-17-2020),  JMcB (12-17-2020),  Kopfjäger (12-17-2020),  Michał (12-17-2020),  Mis (12-17-2020)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,323
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I appreciate your work, too, Mike. You've done a lot for all of us over the years.

    Here's something that has troubled me for quite a while, which has nothing to do with you. It's the idea that modern men of the 21st century can belong to "basal" or "early" subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup R, or of any haplogroup, for that matter.

    That notion is misleading, because all Y-DNA haplogroups with surviving members are equally "basal" and equally "early". There aren't any modern men who are Y-DNA throwbacks to the trunk or even the branches of the phylogenetic tree. We're all out on modern twigs. It's just that some of those twigs are known and have been named, and others have not, because not enough representatives have been subjected to NGS Y-DNA testing.

    Not too many years ago, most of us R1b guys were "R1b-M269", way back down the tree from where we are now known to be. How "basal" and "early" we were!

    I remember one goofy guy on Rootsweb who expressed the opinion that M269 was as far as it went for most of us, and that R1b resolution would never get any further or better than what was known back then: S28 (U152), S21 (U106), M222, and M153.

    Most of us were consigned to what was regarded back then as "Cro-Magnon" status.

    Hilarious to think of it now, and some of us knew even back then that it was ridiculous.

    So, anyway, I don't like designators like "basal" and "early", unless they are being applied to archaeogenetic samples from truly basal or early skeletons like Mal'ta Boy. Those monikers don't fit any modern man.
    I agree it can leave a false impression. I did not name the project but "basal" is the term that I have seen in science. Some times people think of early branching as "old" or "ancient". I can think of a particularly person from a large peninsula in south-central Europe who repeats this over and over. However, as you know it is the "branching" that was ancient, not the modern members of the subclade. They are often just in a less tested group so don't have youthful designated subclades discovered and assigned.

    I don't have a good answer. I wanted to get "Z2103" out there as that is specific in and meaningful. However, a name like the "M343+ P312- U106-" group involves negative criteria which people not in P312 and U106 are less likely to understand or apply correctly. For example they may be Z2103+ P312- and U106 not called but not understand they are presumed U106- because of the positive call in a parallel subclade.

    A name like "Z2103, V1636, PF7562, M73, PF6323, BY14355, PF7589" is almost specific enough but won't fit and is alphabetic gobbledy-gook. How many people know that a subclade well known in literature, V88, is under PF6323?

    As you know, there is not enough project administrative support to have decent projects for each of these.

    Generic names like R1b "miscellaneous" or "sundry" subclades mean almost nothing and who wants to be miscellaneus?

    This is off topic but I still like the idea of FTDNA having a nested haplogroup system where once you join you are automatically are included in all downstream relevant haplogroup projects as testing warrants.... and besides Y Classic, there should be auto subgrouped view that just follows the haplotree. I think it would be too hard for them to do a true nested haplogroup project system but a haplotree view should not be hard.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 12-17-2020 at 02:11 PM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (12-17-2020),  Mis (12-17-2020),  rms2 (12-17-2020)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,323
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerMW View Post
    I don't have a good answer. I wanted to get "Z2103" out there as that is specific in and meaningful. However, a name like the "M343+ P312- U106-" group involves negative criteria which people not in P312 and U106 are less likely to understand or apply correctly. For example they may be Z2103+ P312- and U106 not called but not understand they are presumed U106- because of the positive call in a parallel subclade.

    A name like "Z2103, V1636, PF7562, M73, PF6323, BY14355, PF7589" is almost specific enough but won't fit and is alphabetic gobbledy-gook. How many people know that a subclade well known in literature, V88, is under PF6323?
    Most people don't have a good picture of the the Y tree in their mind. I don't blame them, but this is really why I create these overview charts like the tip of the iceberg descendants tree you see here.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/results

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     GailT (12-17-2020),  JMcB (12-17-2020),  Lancer (01-29-2021),  Mis (12-17-2020),  rms2 (12-17-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2021, 11:34 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-02-2021, 08:41 PM
  3. R-Z2103 & Early R1b, an Enigma of Western Europe
    By Joe B in forum R1b-Z2103/Z2105
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 01:30 PM
  4. Early subclades of R1a
    By Michał in forum R1a General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 02:40 AM
  5. R1b-Early Subclades Haplotypes Spreadsheet
    By TigerMW in forum R1b Early Subclades
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 04:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •