GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1214004043


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:20:43 +0000


They apparently are very recent, say, 300-500 years back. Otherwise the 37-marker haplotypes, let alone 67-marker ones, would have time to mutate in several different individuals.

In this case my assumption that these subclades do not matter for common ancestors who lived many hundreds and thousands years BP, is justified.


Lawrence Mayka wrote:


U106 and U152 in the R-M269 haplogroup are not reliably distinguishable even
at the 67-marker level, yet are true subclades. In the I-M253 haplogroup,
the M227 subclade is not reliably distinguishable even at 67 markers.

> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
>
> However, sometimes "subclades" are not resolved
> even in a 67-marker haplotype tree, and the branch very
> distinctly goes to its common ancestor. In this case either a
> "subclade" does not matter, or it is erroneous, mistyped,
> etc. For me a subclade is not some kind of a mantra if it is
> not segregared in a 67-marker tree.


This thread: