GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211398253
From: Alan R <>
Subject: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:30:53 +0000 (GMT)
Alan, I'm not sure you can say that Ken's dates 'imply that all S116+ R1b
and also S21 post-dates 1600BC so that would include almost all of the
R1b1c* folk too'. Do we know enough about R1b1c* (old name) to make such an
assumption? Maybe I've missed it - have any R1b1c* been tested for S116?
Going by what has been posted on this list I believe almost all of the R1b1c* has turned out to be S116-ve. I think a reasonable sample has been tested judging from posts here. The hope was it would split R1n1c* but it seems it hasn't really. Can anyone clarify this? Sorry for using old terminology but I haven't learned the new ones yet. I prefer the idea of clade names with R1b plus the name of the marker or something similar that some have suggested.
|[DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff by Alan R <>|