Y DNA Composition of Males of Scottish Ancestry

[rncambron]

Does anyone wish to comment on the following breakdown by percentage of the Y DNA for males of scottish ancestry;

R1b-L11:73% I1:9% I2:5% R1a:8.5% E1/G/J/T/Q:5%

R1b-P312:67% R1b-U106:6%

R1b-L21:60% R1b-DF27:5% R1b:S28:2%

I've noticed SDNA say R1b-L21-L1335 is 10-15%.

Can anyone break down the R1b-L21 figures further?

[MitchellSince1893]

What is the source?

The U152/S28 percentage seems a little low compared to other sources.

For example: In the British Isles by County Project, 8 of the 174 (4.6%) confirmed samples from Scottish counties were U152.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

[MitchellSince1893]

What is the source?

The U152/S28 percentage seems a little low compared to other sources.

For example: In the British Isles by County Project, 8 of the 174 (4.6%) confirmed samples from Scottish counties were U152.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

Can't edit this now (after an hour you can't edit anymore) There are now 181 in Scotland so 4.4% of Scotland is U152

Also, went through all of them and counted all those confirmed in the I haplogroup. There are 47 confirmed I haplogroup out of 181 or 26% vs the 14% you mentioned for I1 and I2 combined.

[rncambron]

Thank you for the replies.

The top level numbers are those from Sykes and Oppenheimer and therein lies the concern.They are over a decade old and although their comments on SNP origins are largely discredited I haven't seen any publication which substantially alters their numerical findings.These numbers are still quoted on Europedia,Wikipedia etc

I revisited some SDNA publications.
Their comments on I1 and I2 are consistent with Sykes so I wonder what is happening on the Counties project.
They now say S21(U106)is around 12.5% ie twice what I've written above
They also place S28(U152) in the range 5-10% which is more consistent with your findings

All other things being equal this would decrease L21 to be less than 50%.This would be consistent with the SDNA map for L21.That map shows levels around 30% but excludes, for reasons unknown, S530,M222 and a number of other SNPs. Their inclusion would bring levels back up to around 50%.

Curiously counting 'flags' on Alex's Big Tree gives a close enough approximation to this breakdown of P312.More by chance I suspect.

[MitchellSince1893]

Thank you for the replies.

The top level numbers are those from Sykes and Oppenheimer and therein lies the concern.They are over a decade old and although their comments on SNP origins are largely discredited I haven't seen any publication which substantially alters their numerical findings.These numbers are still quoted on Europedia,Wikipedia etc

I revisited some SDNA publications.
Their comments on I1 and I2 are consistent with Sykes so I wonder what is happening on the Counties project.
They now say S21(U106)is around 12.5% ie twice what I've written above
They also place S28(U152) in the range 5-10% which is more consistent with your findings

All other things being equal this would decrease L21 to be less than 50%.This would be consistent with the SDNA map for L21.That map shows levels around 30% but excludes, for reasons unknown, S530,M222 and a number of other SNPs. Their inclusion would bring levels back up to around 50%.

Curiously counting 'flags' on Alex's Big Tree gives a close enough approximation to this breakdown of P312.More by chance I suspect.

I went back and counted all the U106 and subclades for Scotland. Out of 181 confirmed SNPs, 22 were U106 or 12.2% which very close to your 12.5%

[Dubhthach]

I had a look in Busby, unfortunatly as focus of study was purely on R1b it excludes the breakdown of non R1b section, also because the study predates the discovery of DF27 we are left with a big P312* (xL21, xU152) block. Here's details:

n=168
R1b-L11= 75% (126)

• R1b-P312: 62.50% (n=105)
• R1b-U106: 11.90% (n=20)
• R1b-L11* (P312-, U106-): 0.60% (n=1)

The R1b-P312 cohort (n=105) broke down as following:

• R1b-L21+: 52.38% (n=88)
• R1b-U152+: 2.38% (n=4)
• R1b-P312* (L21-, U152-): 7.74% (n=13)

Again given when the study was carried out the only tested one subclade of L21, namely M222. As a result:

• R1b-M222: 8.93% (n=15)

This n=168 sample was made up of three groups these been:
"North-East Scotland"
"North-West Scotland"
"West Scotland"



I haven't included Orkney sample in above:

Orkney (n=112) (two-thirds of sample size as rest of Scotland!!!)

R1b-L11= 62.5% (70)

• R1b-P312: 43.8% (n=49)
• R1b-U106: 17% (n=19)
• R1b-L11* (P312-, U106-): 1.8% (n=2)

• R1b-L21+: 33.9% (n=38)
• R1b-U152+: 3.6% (n=4)
• R1b-P312* (L21-, U152-): 6.3% (n=7)

R1b-M222+: 0.9% (n=1)

[rncambron]

Thank you for the input.
We seem to be converging on a consistent set of figures.
I had previously quoted 5% for DF27 so your P312* is in the same ball park.Similarly your M222 figure is reasonably close to SDNA's estimate of 6%.
I suppose the best source of data would be the SDNA Chromo 2000 spreadsheet but unfortunately the ancestry of the test participants has never been revealed as far as I am aware.

[rms2]

It seems to me scientific studies are better sources of data than private dna testing company stats, and FTDNA project data should be used with care, since many of the project members are people from North America, Australia, and New Zealand who are not necessarily really sure who their immigrant y-dna ancestor was or where he came from. As a project administrator with a number of years under my belt, I can tell you that many of them are only guessing based on something slim they found on Ancestry.com or on wishful thinking.

In other words, Busby is about the most reliable source of R1b data for the Isles that we have had in a long while. Perhaps when and if POBI releases its y-dna stats we'll get better data.

[rncambron]

Perhaps you can use your position to influence SDNA to reveal the sources of their data for Chromo 2000?

As it is I'm not clear why you think people are more reliable on their ancestry with academics than with testing companies.People in situ in the Isles in my experience know little beyond their grandparents.If anything 'emigrants' with their awareness of their loss of heritage are more cognisant hence the domination of sites such as this by 'emigrants'. However I accept there are many clinging to straws to gain the proverbial 'lang pedigree'.

[rms2]

Perhaps you can use your position to influence SDNA to reveal the sources of their data for Chromo 2000?

As it is I'm not clear why you think people are more reliable on their ancestry with academics than with testing companies.People in situ in the Isles in my experience know little beyond their grandparents.If anything 'emigrants' with their awareness of their loss of heritage are more cognisant hence the domination of sites such as this by 'emigrants'. However I accept there are many clinging to straws to gain the proverbial 'lang pedigree'.

In my experience running a number of FTDNA projects, I have dealt with many project members who are not really sure who their y-dna immigrant ancestor was; however, they list one anyway, often based on something undocumented and unconfirmed that they gleaned from the internet or a tree on Ancestry.com. Sometimes they seize on a particular putative ancestor out of wishful thinking. Some even go so far as to list a medieval king or famous viking as their mdka.

Academics putting together scientific research papers certainly are not perfect, but most of them are concerned about their professional reputations at least and try to conform to certain standards that eliminate wild or dubious ancestral claims. Their data can be seen as accurately reflecting the current y-dna profile of a given region, assuming the sample size is adequate.

I did not mean to be critical of North Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. I myself am an American. But not everyone is as careful and as circumspect as he should be.