GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118071949
From: "Angela Cone-Phipps" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] It's official -- I'm weird
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:32:29 +0200
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
Bonnie Schrack wrote:
> 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
At the moment, Id be cautious about assigning a haplogroup to this
haplotype. It looks to me to be one that definitely needs a SNP test, - so
its good that one has already been ordered. It will interesting to see
what the result is.
Heres my analysis in full (which will repeat some of which has already been
Based on close matches, it could be either of I, J2, or G. From what I
understand, FTDNA only predicts based on similarity to SNPed 12 marker
haplotypes (rather than an algorithm per se.). The first 12 markers are
more similar to haplogroup I (as seen in the closest FTDNA database matches,
& Whits calculator). Since FTDNAs predictions are only based on the first
12 markers, increasing the number of markers wont refine the prediction
FTDNA makes. Whits calculator on the other hand, gives an increasingly
higher percentage for J2 when the number of markers is increased.
I noticed in Y-search, the closest matches are to a mixture of G, I and J2.
I dont think we can say that it is more likely to be I purely on the basis
of ancestry, - my hunch is that all three haplogroups have been in Britain a
while, (obviously in lower frequency than R1b) and haplogroups G and J2
dont necessarily imply recent arrival to the British isles, let alone
I dont think we can dismiss it as J2 on the basis of YCAII 19,19 either. A
look in y-search shows that there is one J2 haplotype with those values.
Bonnie, Im a wee bit cautious about this new hypothetical haplogroup I
cluster. It sounds to me like these are haplotypes in the areas when the
haplotype distributions for G, I, J2, and C3 overlap. This might be a
genuine new cluster, or it might be an artificial cluster of haplotypes of
different haplogroups that are superficially similar. I think several
people within this cluster would need to be SNP tested before we can be sure
that it is not an artificial grouping.