GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1165035146


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA] DYS437+R1a=Strange
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:52:26 -0800
References: <20061128082753.NFSG9670.oaamta01ps.mx.bigpond.com@DINOSAUR> <4570F9D9.1020105@sbcglobal.net><000801c715c7$302e62d0$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000801c715c7$302e62d0$6400a8c0@Ken1>


In J2 the distribution is slightly skewed upward with the 5 cases at
DYS437=17, otherwise it looks fairly symmetrical about the modal value.
If there were a few cases at DYS437=13 then that would be different (and
I would of said "symmetrical" in that case), but there were no cases of
DYS437=13 and 5 cases of DYS437=17 so I concluded "upward". But you're
right that it is not a very strong case of upward mutation.

J2a has a DYS437 modal at 15 and J2b has it at 16 (based on June 2006 data).

I think some authors estimate J1 as older than J2. But J2 has much more
Y-STR diversity than J1 so I think J2 is older than J1.
Al


> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

>J1 looks like it is slowly moving up, but why do you say that about J2?
>
>Incidently, what is the consensus view of the relative ages of J1 versus J2?
>Your J2 distribution looks like a much older distribution, or there are a
>few clades combined within the J2 with different 437 modalities.
>
>Ken
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:58 PM
>Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA] DYS437+R1a=Strange
>
>
>
>
>>DYS437 has a tight range (mono-valued) in J1 too (at least for the data
>>samples available).
>>
>>Here is the J1 distribution:
>>DYS437=13 0 0.0%
>>DYS437=14 249 94.0%
>>DYS437=15 14 5.3%
>>DYS437=16 2 0.7%
>>DYS437=17 0 0.0%
>>
>>The J2 distribution is more spread out:
>>DYS437=13 0 0.0%
>>DYS437=14 192 29.9%
>>DYS437=15 275 42.7%
>>DYS437=16 171 26.6%
>>DYS437=17 5 0.8%
>>DYS437=18 0 0.0%
>>
>>It appears to be mutating upward in both J1 & J2.
>>Al
>>
>>

This thread: