GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116226055


From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: FW: [DNA] A Rare Variety of R1b in Scotland
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:47:35 +0200


Dear John

If you can add more surnames to our list, I would be thankful as it would
show us soemthing more about whether we have found something useful or
interesting or both.

I'd like to hear more about a "steady progression" because what I see so
far - not being very experienced or expert! - looks a little unsteady. In
any case I think you are right that there might be intermediate haplotypes
that show up between our most tightly defined group and WAMH. For example,
if you just look for R1b people with 385a of 13 or more you do of course get
more hits than the ones in our group, but looking at the bigger picture you
also you get less evidence of this being one single branch of R1b, rather
than many small ones - for example there is no longer the strong connection
to Scotland and there is no longer much of a consistent pattern that we've
spotted yet in the other markers.

However one of the main interests we (the people with relatives or surname
projects involved) have had in this however not only speculation about what
this means, but also genealogical use. So, what do people on this list think
of using an unusual set of DNA markers, that show sign of coming from one
region (but a big region that was known to be a bit isolated for long
periods) for genealogical research? I am aware of the fact that warnings
about such comparisons are more or less routine, but presumably some amount
of rareness and isolatedness in a particular haplotype must make it easier
for people to try to make DNA comparisons outside of DNA projects - and this
does seem to be such a case? The communication which has developed between
people with these markers has in fact already been very promising from a
genealogical point of view.

Regards
Andrew Lancaster


-----Original Message-----

When I sort the databases to find the combinations that you mention, I
note that there appears to be a steady progression of allele values
through the R1b Data. I could add a few more surnames to your list,
but I do not see what it would really add. Noting any particular
significance of one allele pattern compared to another does not seem
very relevant when looked at in light of a large database. I get the
picture that there were so many R1b ancestors 5000 to 10,000 years ago
and they have managed to have so many children over the intervening
years, perhaps less in more recent centuries resulting in more
individual unique lines, that their descendants have highly mutated DNA
in today's world. There certainly is a great deal of range in the
allele values.

Maybe Adam was R1b and everyone else mutated from him? ;-)

Need a smile after a hot sticky Sunday.

John Carr

On May 15, 2005, at 2:39 PM, David Wilson wrote:

> the rare R1b doublet 385a,b=15,15
> The significant values for this variety and their differences from R1b
> modal
> are:
>
> 390 = 25 instead of 24
> 391 = 10 instead of 11
> 385a,b = 15,15 instead of 11,14
> 439 = 11 instead of 12
>
> Among those who tested 25 markers, we also see:
>
> 458 = 15 instead of 17
> 449 = 30 or 31 instead of 29
>
> In addition, the only two members of this group who tested 37 markers
> (they
> have different surnames) show these values:
>
> 460 = 10 instead of 11
> 456 = 15 instead of 16
> 570 = 16 instead of 17
>
> Over 37 markers, that adds up to a genetic distance from Modal R1b of
> about
> 13 -- significant. (The word "about" recognizes that the actual modal
> values for the group may change, particularly for the last three
> markers,
> when more results are assembled.) Even if we indulged in the wild
> speculation that the 385a,b value is a masked or misinterpreted 11,15
> (or
> something similar), the genetic distance would still be 9 or 10.
>

______________________________

This thread: