GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119497179


From: "South" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup F*
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:26:19 +1000
References: <021b01c57798$9ac4cbd0$6401a8c0@whit>


Hi Whit,

Hmm.......

As you know the last haplotype in the three mentioned are the same values we
have up to now included within I2*. These are not SNP tested.

What SNP mutations are being used to discern F1, etc??

Was the discernment of F* due to a P19- result?

Grant South.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Whit Athey" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: [DNA] Haplogroup F*


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: