Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111017077

From: "Bonnie Schrack" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cohen Modal Haplotype and J2
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:51:17 -0500

Hi Ellen et al,

You wrote,

>First, is FTDNA actually doing SNP's to differentiate
>between J2 & J1? I assumed they would merely SNP for
>the 12f2a-8b allele belonging to both branches, not
>for J-M267* or J-172*.

Yes, FTDNA is actually doing SNPs for this purpose. . . what they do,
is simply test for M172. If you have it, you are in J2. If you aren't
positive for that,
then they can test for 12f2a to make sure you are at least in J. The
last time I asked,
they were not testing for M267, though I urged them to.

>Second, Ann posted something about the CMH properly
>belonging to J*/J1. I do not consider the CMH to
>properly belong within J*. In fact, I'm not clear
>where or if any significant J* has been found by
>researchers. I would be very interested to know if
>they had. In Semino's 2004 study, he classified all
>previously recorded J* results (JxJ2) as belonging to
>J-M267*. J* (like R* & R1*) is still a relative
>mystery because so little has been adequately
>identified and studied.

OK, but Ellen, when people say J*/J1, they are just referring to what
technically, today, is supposed to be known as J1. Since FTDNA does
not test for J1, they tell people that their haplogroup is either J or
Thus, people are thinking of the rest of the larger haplogroup as "J*"
instead of "J1."
Callling it J* is of course what everyone did, up until Cinnioglu et al
discovered J1, quite recently. I am well aware that almost no one
actually belongs
to J*, but saying J*/J1 is just shorthand for J(xJ2), in a situation in
which people
have not all read and absorbed Cinnioglu, Semino, etc.

>Furthermore, little to nothing has been reported on J1
>sub-clades. Semino identified J-M365 in Caucasus
>groups, J-390 in Iraq, and a tiny amount of J-M62 in
>Central Asia. That's it. Contrast that with what has
>been identified and reported within sub-branch J2.
>Given that J1 supposedly originated in the southern
>Levant, why have no sub-clades of J1 been found (or
>reported) there yet?

Gosh, since none of us are population geneticists or field researchers,
and none of those
who are professionals in the field have been able to discover the answer
to that,
how would we know why no J1 sub-clades have been discovered? I imagine
they are
wondering, themselves, why they haven't been able to find any.

>Third, FTDNA reported on my Cohen uncle's J results
>that they are now using 12 rather than the previously
>published 6-markers to identify the CMH. I believe
>these markers are an identical match to my uncle's
>results, so if your interested in the full 12-markers,
>please contact me.

Well, I think that by now, many of us are aware of the 12 marker CMH. I

just sent it in an email to Eleanor Gordon. It doesn't take too much

of scientific papers and putting 2 + 2 together to figure it out. For
example, by

compiling the data, and figuring what the modal 12-marker values are

for the Jewish families who have the known CMH markers.

Do you think there would actually be some legal penalty if I were to
tell the list

what I think it is? I mean, I don't think FTDNA actually owns the
concept, do they? ;-)

I was certainly going to be comparing the CMH to other haplotypes on my


Note: please direct personal replies to , not to
this address.

This thread: