Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119048595

From: "Lowe DNA" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] I am M269+ (R1b1c)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:49:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>


Not disorganized...yet undiscovered. Undocumented relationships
in chains of 100,000's of Y junk DNA base pairs.


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Davenport [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] I am M269+ (R1b1c)

Boy, what a great explanation!

And shows how completely disorganized the whole thing is!

At 02:39 PM 6/17/2005, wrote:
>If you are P25+ you are definitely R1b1 -- for the moment. Clade labels
>change in this game.
>Three years ago, when the YCC tree was first published, P25 identified R1b.
>But then a new SNP was discovered -- M343 -- that was intermediate between
>M173 and P25. That pushed P25 and all the downstream markers one rung
>further down the ladder. That meant P25 became the designator for R1b1,
>where it remains today.
>The haplogroup tree is periodically revised as new SNPs are discovered and
>inserted and old SNPs are moved to different levels in the hierarchy based
>on new evidence. But regardless of what happens to the tree, the SNP
>designations never change. If you are P25 this year, you will be P25 next
>year. That's why some people think it is easier to talk about haplogroups
>by their SNP rather than by their clade designation within the tree.
>As to why some companies test for this marker and some for that one to
>establish a particular spot in the hierarchy -- I dunno. Inertia, maybe, in
>the case of the labs that keep testing something that worked just fine in
>the years before the new SNPs were recognized. The purist in me thinks that
>a lab should always test for the most recent (= downstream) SNP that can be
>associated with a particular clade. For the broad R1b universe in our
>current state of knowledge, that SNP would be M269. But since it appears
>there would be something like 99.9 percent overlap (or even higher) if you
>tested a European population for both SNPs, it is almost a distinction
>without a difference.
>A side note here: Because the clade labels keep changing, you need to make
>sure you know the date of a particular study you are reading. If you read a
>2003 study that refers to haplogroup R1b3f, you need to know that will be
>R1b1c6 in the current 2005 terminology. (That's a subclade of R1b1c that is
>found in Iberia.) A year before that it had been called R1b8. But in any
>case, it is always the subclade identified by M167 (also called SRY2627).
>In 2002, the clade called R1b1 was associated with M18. Today, R1b1 is
>associated with P25. If you don't know your SNPs and you're trying to
>compare the findings of clade-oriented articles published a couple of years
>apart, you could get onto the wrong branch of the tree pretty quickly if
>you aren't paying attention.
>David W.
>Original Message:
>From: Robert Davenport
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:53:41 -0700
>Subject: Re: [DNA] I am M269+ (R1b1c)
>So, if you are P25+, like me, you are definitely Rlb1.
>Why don't they test for M269? At this point, I can only "surmise" that I
>have it.
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> .
>New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors
>at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:

Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.'s United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:

This thread: