GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-03 > 1236981270


From: Al Aburto <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New developments in Y haplogroup J-M304 ...
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:54:34 -0700
References: <200903132118.n2DLIgoU003608@mail.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200903132118.n2DLIgoU003608@mail.rootsweb.com>


Hi Tim,
The ISOGG J tree for M289 may be correct, but I presumed Thomas was
seeking to confirm the placement using his own control samples, but
according to his latest update he lacks a control sample for M289. If
you have done a Deep Clade J test then probably M289 has already been
tested on you, right??

Hopefully (well, I'm sure that) the FTDNA Arizona lab, and other labs
(Underhill @ Stanford) are all in the process of testing the new SNPs
too, and independently confirming the new J tree.
Al


> Tim Janzen wrote:
> Dear Al,
> Thanks for the update. M289 has been placed downstream of DYS 445=6
> on the ISOGG tree. Thomas Krahn should have my sample as a reference sample
> in the very near future if he doesn't have it already. Since I am L70+ and
> have DYS 445=6 Thomas should be able to check my sample for M289 if he wants
> to do that. I would presume that M289 was originally placed downstream of
> DYS 445=6 on the ISOGG tree for good reason, but perhaps the ISOGG tree is
> wrong in regards to the position of M289 on the tree. Thomas' chart would
> suggest that M289 could be upstream of L25. If the M289 samples truly have
> DYS 445=6 then M289 can't be upstream from L25. It is also still unclear
> whether DYS 445=6 is upstream or downstream of L70 or phylogenetically
> equivalent to L70. I hope that this can all be sorted out with time.
> Sincerely,
> Tim Janzen
>

This thread: