GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119730249


From: "gareth.henson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Null DYS439 Website
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:49 +0100
References: <01b401c57933$6958d6d0$7302a8c0@YOURF8387228BF> <002701c57998$96d37ec0$0bafbc43@c1076818a>


Joe & Phil

you need to draw attention to the fact that the groups appear to share
particular values which are non-modal for R1b:
DYS459 = 9,9 (not 9,10)
DYS460 = 10 (not 11)
DYS607 = 16 (not 15)
DYS576 = 17 (not 18)
CDYa = 38 (not 37)
Some of these are "fast" markers, others not. If you can establish that they
are ancestral values for the groups considered separately, and not just
modal values for the whole set, then IMO you have a good case for a common
ancestry.
So as well as more examples you also need more upgrades to 37 markers for
the people you have already included. Do they have good paper trails?

Gareth



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Fox" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Null DYS439 Website


> Phil
>
> We are still trying to figure this out. The fact that two of us - one
> Little and one Fox - have been tested by the Sorenson Labs and found to
have
> value of 12 repeats says to us that it is probably a situation where
FTDNA's
> primers differ from Sorenson's and indicates a single nucleotide
> polymorphism in the area near to DYS439. If so, this could all represent a
> single family with a common ancestor some 1500 to 2000 years ago. That's
> why we are anxious to find more examples.
>
> Joe Fox
> Lafayette, CA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Goff" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Null DYS439 Website
>
>
> > This is an amazing table of haplotypes. Do you believe that this
indicates
> a
> > fairly close relationship among these different families? The markers
all
> > look very similar. Very interesting.
> >
> > Phil



This thread: