GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291927215


From: "Tim Janzen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:40:15 -0800
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=71WHCmdKtNxFKt2KbkhLfiHqFFMnHXHVonfCL@mail.gmail.com>


Dear Mike,
I agree with Vince's comments in his response to your message below.
I try hard to avoid doing a comparison between a paragroup and another SNP
defined subclade when I am doing interclade TMRCA estimates, but I have done
them on occasion when there are not two sister SNP defined subclades in the
same subclade that I am interested in.
The reason we are using the paragroup data for intraclade TMRCA
estimates for R-312* is that we are attempting to determine the region in
Europe where the variance is the highest. The purpose of using the
paragroup data for intraclade TMRCA estimates is not an attempt to produce
an accurate TMRCA estimate for the entire subclade. Ideally, you should
only do interclade TMRCA estimates using data from two sister SNP defined
subclades for that.
Sincerely,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Mike W
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?

Dear Tim,

The challenge I have is that I question the validity of comparing the
variance (and therefore also the TMRCA) of a paragroup versus a true
subclade.

Anyway, since P312* is a paragroup, there may be some P312*
individuals that are more closely related to L21's TMRCA or U152's
than to all other P312* tested individuals. This may or may not be
the case, but we just don't know. So my challenge is how can it make
sense to compare P312* as a group with L21, U152, etc. since P312* is
really not one group?

Regards, Mike


This thread: