GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119492571


From: "Whit Athey" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Haplogroup F*
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:09:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000701c57792$a0c20e90$5a579045@Ken1>


Ken, we've had this discussion before as I recall, but it seems that neither
of us has moved very far from our original positions. I can agree with a
lot of what you're saying, but disagree on a few points.

Here is what we know at the moment: We have three examples of F* haplotypes
tested by FTDNA that I know about. I will only present the first 12 markers
for simplicity, but that's enough for my point (FTDNA order):

14-22-16-10-11-13-11-12-11-14-11-31
12-23-14-10-12-13-11-15-12-14-12-31
15-24-15-10-15-15-11-13-13-14-12-31

Here are a few more minimal F* haplotypes from Kivisild's India study (same
FTDNA order, this is just a sampling):

13-23-14-10-xx-xx-xx-12-11-xx-xx-xx
14-21-17-11-xx-xx-xx-13-10
13-25-14-10-xx-xx-xx-13-13
13-22-16-11-xx-xx-xx-15-11

There's a lot of diversity there!

In regard to F1, you are right. F1 has the same "tree status" as G, H, I,
etc, but presumably they had already assigned all the available letters so
they called it F1. If any new haplogroups of F are discovered within the
present F* pool, presumably they would be called F2, F3, etc.

Whit


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Nordtvedt [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup F*

Whit, I don't agree with the idea that F* should be as variable as a random
group of J, I, G, and H haplotypes. Haplotypes diversify by two methods.
The one is sort of obvious to all of us --- the steady accumulation of
mutations at the various markers which turns an original "founder's unique
haplotype" into a distribution of haplotypes centered on that founding
haplotype (if "up" and "down" mutation rates are about equal which they are
not in a good number of cases).

The second method for diversification of haplotypes is when there are new
founders who start a prolific line because they moved into a new
advantageous environment, or for other reasons, including luck. These new
founders will be displaced from the modal haplotype of the original
population from which they came, and their success will amplify their
novelty from the original modal form and very decisively add to diversity of
the whole haplotype pool.

I believe the SNPs preferentially (by choice of the finders and their
procedures of search) tag these new novel populations from the various
founders discussed above, so the multitude of downstream haplogroups from F*
will show more diversity than what is left as F* or any single subclade F1,
etc. F* is what is left after we extract all populations which can be
identified with additional downstream SNPs. I think much of the potential
diversity of those 60,000 years as been stripped away and put into all those
downstream haplogroups.

Incidently, if G, H, I, J ..... are defined each by their own additional SNP
from that which defines F*, how would a F1 differ from a G, H, I, J, .... in
the logic of the overall tree? It seems that F1 is also defined by its own
SNP tacked on to the defining SNP for F*? So F1 and I*, for instance, seem
equivalent as to status in the tree? Or am I missing something?

Ken





This thread: