Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192066859

From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New R1b1c SNPs Was: R1b DYS458=14 null439 connection
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:40:59 +1300
In-Reply-To: <006e01c80ba0$7f345c70$6501a8c0@Richard>


You said
I must say that I never ordered the S68 test. When I saw that the haplotype
of one of the two known S68+ men was quite distant from my own, I figured it

was better not to send good money to chase after bad.

I understand that many men have ordered that test, however, and that to date

there are still just two who are positive for S68.

At the few markers which the two S68+ have in common, there are sufficient
differences to indicate the clade may be reasonably old. I think until more
is known about it, it can't necessarily be assumed it is a small clade. It
was some time ago that I compared the two S68+ haplotypes, but as I recall,
there were no markers in common which were sufficiently distinctive to help
identify the clade. The Swedish person was testing more markers, but I have
not seen results for those.

At this stage, I don't believe "very" many have tested for S68. John McEwan
only has 3 S68 results on his SNP database. Perhaps he has not been keeping
that up to date. I am S68-, but I am not aware of any publicly readily
accessible results for S68, other than mine and the 3 on the McEwan
database. A few have stated on this list that they are S68-, but I have not
kept a record of them.

Wikipedia says...
"The newest Y-SNP to surface is S68. At present S68 has been seen in an
individual from Scotland and another from Sweden. S68 is unlikely to be
found in much more than 2% of the R1b population and is thus not considered
a polymorphism."
I didn't think that the size of a clade was the criteria for determining if
something was a "polymorphism".

The R1b project does not yet recognize S68+ as a clade as far as I can see.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.1/1050 - Release Date: 10/4/2007
5:03 PM

This thread: