GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1267825462


From: John German <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Danish "homeland" of Viking Era emigrantsto Eastern England and Normandy
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:44:24 -0500
References: <ea3bd9561003021130r7ce1e8c0na0195ecbc243dd3f@mail.gmail.com> <SNT131-w18ED8CB2E907B9C7D4B841BC3B0@phx.gbl> <ea3bd9561003030920r426ea707rf9476b9408f21eba@mail.gmail.com> <SNT131-w557250FD0A4619BE46234ABC3A0@phx.gbl> <ea3bd9561003051109r35d6c9e0q7a712bc255951b3e@mail.gmail.com> <4B915B6C.1040501@jarman.net><09D6C0A8-77DB-499C-9F13-44351733CEF8@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <09D6C0A8-77DB-499C-9F13-44351733CEF8@vizachero.com>


Vincent Vizachero wrote:

>For better or for worse, some (many?) of these contour maps show the
>subclades as a percentage of R1b or R1b1b2.
>
>Therefore, by definition, areas where R-U106 (for example) is less
>frequent are areas where some other clade(s) of R1b must be more
>frequent.
>
>
.

. . . . or vice versa: where U152 is more frequent, clade U106 becomes a
smaller percentage of the total when compared to totals in areas where
U152 is less frequent. I wonder if enough data is available to subtract
the U152 in all the 3 areas in question to calculate new U106 percentages.


This thread: