Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267032786

From: William Hurst <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] mtDNA X1 in Eastern Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:33:06 -0500
References: <008801cab4f3$a484a710$ed8df530$@org>, ,<BAY133-W15543885BBA117930E6AF7F1410@phx.gbl>, ,<FBDF1B19D4E948748168C6CF417C010D@Silva>,<BAY133-W62943FC2DF9F9C3CCAAE9F1410@phx.gbl>,<8232AA668CF245DEA6A49F045854457F@Silva>
In-Reply-To: <8232AA668CF245DEA6A49F045854457F@Silva>

Hi again Grandcross,

> That's interesting but you may want to consider kit N23620 in the K Project
> with 16224C, 16311C and 16519C. This person's maternal paper trail goes back
> to 1691 in Portugal and the surname (carried forward along the female line)
> has been documented in western Iberia since the eighth century. N23620
> started out as K1c and now appears as simply "K". We've been waiting nearly
> four months to get the results of an FGS (batch 330) which should help in
> definition. Of course, I can't think of any reason why all K's in Iberia
> must fit into one particular category, but the fact you saw a pattern as you
> did is interesting nonetheless.

No, not everybody from Iberia is in the same subclade. #N23620 was never officially in K1c, since FTDNA only assigns deeper designations than K without FGS results. I have the person in the K1c1 Subgroup because of the 498- which defines K1c and the lack of 16320T which defines K1c2. So far nobody's an ancestral K1c, so if you are not a K1c2 you are a K1c1. Or a K1c1b; those cannot be distinguished from HVR results. We do have one official K1c1 with 16320T, but that's just Mitochondrial Eve's way of messing with my mind. I think I understand how that happened, but you have to pay more for that info.

#N23620's FGS is due back on March 1. Don't bet on it. I'm better at predicting subclades than dates.

Bill Hurst

This thread: