GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119754609


From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Now I'm REALLY confused!
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:56:49 -0400


David,
You wrote:

> According to information at Ian Logan's web site
> (http://www.ilbg18230.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mtdna.htm), R is one of the
> supergroups that contains many of the other alphabetical haplogroups.
>
> What is interesting is that I and W, which were once suggested to you as
> possible haplogroup homes, are part of a different supergroup -- N.

David, if you will study mtDNA a little further, you will see that R is
a supergroup that is nested within the N supergroup. I, W, X, A, and N1
are haplogroups that belong to N but not to R. All the other common
European haplogroups belong to R.

>
> If I'm reading the separate org charts correctly, it looks as though there
> is a kind of ambiguous zone

No, there is not really an "ambiguous zone," if you understand the mtDNA
phylogenetic tree. It's about as well understood as the Y chromosome tree.

> where haplotypes that are clearly not part of
> the root haplogroup collection (L and its immediate successors) might
> belong
> to one or the other of the major derivative supergroups -- that would be R
> and N.

The two supergroups that emerged from L are N and M. M and its
descendents are hardly ever found in Europe, but are very common in
Asia. N happens to be the supergroup we are dealing with here.

The number of haplotypes that actually belong to a supergroup but no
further defined haplogroup is extremely small.

And as I tried to explain in my last posting, the specific HVR2
mutations Margaret has make it absolutely clear that she is W. Did
you not read that, or you think I was simply making it up? If you have
specific reasons to doubt what I'm saying, I can supply many more
details to back up my assertions.

> Semmes to me FTDNA thought they saw I and W features at first glance,
> but by the time they finished their analysis you looked more like an R to
> them.

If they thought that, they would be unbelievably confused. Her
haplogroup could not possibly be R, if we are going to go by any kind of
rational procedure.

>
> I'm just expressing an opinion based on the tables at Ian's site. I don't
> pretend to be an mtDNA expert. Maybe Ian has an idea about this situation.

Yes, I'm sure he does, and he has expressed his opinion on the other two
cases who had identical haplotypes to Margaret. He has been completely
in agreement with what I've said. If he sees things differently now, I
will of course welcome his input.

Bonnie Schrack




This thread: