GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291936377


From: Robert Tarín <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:12:57 -0600
References: <AANLkTi=71WHCmdKtNxFKt2KbkhLfiHqFFMnHXHVonfCL@mail.gmail.com><201012092040.oB9KeSAf006026@mail.rootsweb.com><AANLkTim1NFnY75A6CMLW3NLx-jbuDYgbLJxbod4u94vi@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1NFnY75A6CMLW3NLx-jbuDYgbLJxbod4u94vi@mail.gmail.com>


Mike,

The haplotypes used from the R-P312 and Subclades Project were listed as
P312* which implies negative for all known downstream subclades. I fully
understand there may be as yet undiscovered subclades in this dataset of
P312*. On the other hand, if they had not been tested for all known
downstream SNPs they should not be shown with the * (asterisk). All P312*
should be P312* regardless of location. We can only work with the known data
at hand and of course the situation can always change with new information.
My analysis was not meant to be ultimately definitive of P312*s origin. My
focus was on trying to determine a location for the oldest P312* haplotypes,
not to determine an accurate TMRCA. This was kindly pointed out in Tim's
message.

Regards,
Robert Tarín

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Mike W <> wrote:

> Tim and Vince,
>
> Thanks for your clarifying comments. The key point I get is that a
> TMRCA for a paragroup (i.e. P312*) should not be used to infer the age
> for the subclade itself (i.e. P312 all).
>
> Another caution in comparing paragroup variance and TMRCA calculations
> would also be that P312* in one location may not be equivalent to
> P312* in another. For example, P312* in Iberia may include an entirely
> different set and/or mix of unknown subclades than a P312* collection
> from Eastern Europe.
>
> Regards, Mike
>



This thread: