GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118026246
From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] It's official -- I'm weird
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:50:46 -0400
David Wilson wrote:
> FTDNA is pretty cautious with its projections, so they probably
> have reason not to propose haplogroup J. (I don't follow I and J closely,
> but I recall that there is potential confusion between subclades of each.)
In a way, there could be confusion between I and J, but this is much
more likely when you're dealing with a limited number of markers, and in
practice, it mostly comes up when Whit's Predictor is used.
We were discussing a haplotype from this same cluster that Glen seems to
be in, around May 23rd. Explaining why I'm quite sure this doesn't
belong to the J haplogroup, I wrote:
> That's an intriguing haplotype, all right. I would guess that there
> isn't much chance of it being J2 or J1.
> For one thing, the 8 10 10 12 at 459a,b, 455, and 454, taken together,
> seem way too far from the 9,9 or 8,9 and the nearly universal 11 11 found
> in J2 and J1. Especially the 10 at 459b. Those 11s do rarely mutate
> to a 10 or a 12. But I've never seen more than one of them not be 11,
> in J.
> 13 at DYS393 is of course, very rare in the J haplogroup.
There are probably more reasons I could come up with to explain why it
isn't J2 or J1. We nearly always have 9 at 438 in J2, while J1 has 10,
in common with many other haplogroups. Nothing about Glen's haplotype
looks like J1, which is very rare in England.
I have never seen a 19,19 at YCAII in the J haplogroup. The mode in J2
is 19,22 and J2e has 19,20. This is not a marker that fluctuates lightly.
And 14 at DYS393 would be even more rare than the 13 mentioned above.
Hope this helps to clarify some of the reasons why we believe this group
is I and not J. Ken could no doubt say more.
|RE: [DNA] It's official -- I'm weird by Bonnie Schrack <>|