GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266249813


From: "Richard Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FW: : variance of S116*
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:03:33 -0500
References: <842231.82147.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <842231.82147.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com>


I realize one haplotype more or less won't make that much difference, but
this morning another Polish R-P312* (Ysearch 6PNVS) joined the R-P312 and
Subclades Project. What is interesting is that his only close haplotype
neighbor is another Pole (Ysearch 9KSYS) with a different surname.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan R" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 07:28
Subject: Re: [DNA] FW: : variance of S116*


As far as I can see, despite the many issues of the intraclade variance
method, there is simply no other show in town when attempting a within-clade
study with a view to establishing the origin area and direction of spread of
a clade. Other than that you just have the phylogeny of the clade defining
SNP - what is up and downstream of it and distribution maps. However, this
method is still very vague and there still seems a very blurry (if not
missing) link between the upstream forms in SW Asia and SE Europe and the
downstream of P310 forms in the west. I think there is little choice but to
look at intraclade variance when the aim is the finer detail of a clades
history. The major concern I have is not the method but the sample for each
area which (if I am understanding this correctly) is very very small. I
wonder if it would be better given the small number of 67 markers to look at
37 markers too.

Alan





This thread: