GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260899086


From: Didier VERNADE <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-L21 Plus news - downstream branches to be better defined
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:44:46 +0100 (CET)
References: <5cf61dfb0912142207i38e9aeefu33dac8a475f17be2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5cf61dfb0912142207i38e9aeefu33dac8a475f17be2@mail.gmail.com>


Thank you for these data. May be you don't have it at hand but it would be interesting to know also how many people tested these 4 SNPs downstream of L21 and were negative (the "true" L21*) ; the frequency of each subgroup could be estimated. Is L226 still the "Irish type III" SNP or is it encompassing a larger (or smaller) group ?


Didier



>
> The downstream branching of R-L21*, the L21+ M222- paragroup, will be
> much clearer soon. Here is a little background...
>
> We've identified 906 R-L21* confirmed people from the R-L21 Plus
> project and from Ysearch. There are more, but many are buried in
> surname projects.
>
> Over 65% of these 906 L21* folks have tested out to 67 STR markers.
> Bravo! All R1b1b2 folks need to.
>
> Of the 906, some have already been tested for newly discovered downstream SNP's:
> at least 32 have tested 159.2+
> at least 22 have tested L226+
> at least 2 have tested L69.4+ (both French, by the way)
> at least 3 have tested L193+
>
> There are few other downstream SNP's as well that I don't have much
> info on those and/or they may be private.
>
> OI would be remiss not to acknowledge the big downstream SNP, M222+.
> None of the above numbers include M222+ but there are 547 M222+ in the
> M222+ (aka R1b1c7) project and many more beyond the project.
>
> The NEW news is that there has been a late rush of new R-L21*
> downstream orders. In weeks, we'll have much better picture of the
> L21+ tree.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>


This thread: