GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-01 > 1294014299
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New major lineage of y-dna A!
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 17:24:59 -0700
Sounds groovy, but why don't you send us to a conventional file like excel?
I get a threat warning and also an "access denied" message.
----- Original Message -----
From: "argiedude" <>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:13 PM
Subject: [DNA] New major lineage of y-dna A!
> I had no idea there was a big discussion going on about y-dna A. How
> appropriate. Last month I asked if someone could get the haplotype data
> from the recent huge y-dna study of Zambia (de Filippo, 2010). I finally
> got it, and I noticed there was an A sample with 438=14, an extremely
> unusual value. I remembered there were also some weird A samples with
> 438=14 from the huge y-dna study of Gabon (Berniell-Lee, 2009). Back then
> I thought it must be some local meanignless cluster restricted to a small
> country. But with this new sample from the other side of the Congo jungle,
> it wasn't such thing, and I decided it was time to make an update of the
> datafile of y-dna A samples that I had built a year ago (which can be
> found at dna-forums). That file had 100 A samples. This updated file I'm
> sharing below has almost 250.
> The sample with 438=14 turned out to be the exact opposite of meaningless.
> As can be seen in the file, they are found from West Africa to South
> Africa. They belong to 3 subclusters, one of which has 392=14 + 438=14,
> another 392=11 + 438=14, and the third 392=11 + 438=11. All 3 share
> several commonalities that clearly unite them into a single bigger group.
> It's rather easy to spot them, because they have a telltale signature in
> the first 3 FTDNA markers: 393/390/19 = 14/20/14. They have many
> extremely, and I mean really extremely, bizarre STR modals. I think the
> worst one is A10=9, found in all 3 subclusters. Other A haplogroups don't
> come even close to this value, what's more, out of 4,000 random ysearch
> samples from all haplogroups that tested A10, there wasn't a single case
> of a sample with A10=9, instead they ranged between 10 and 16. And no, I
> didn't make a mistake, or missed a conversion issue, I double-checked and
> they are what they are... which is exceptionally bizarr!
> I have very good reason to believe, if not totally convinced, that this
> cluster is negative for A1 and A3b, and though I have to check again, I
> think A2 also tested negative in one of them. Anyhow, their haplotypes
> don't put them anywhere remotely close to the other major clades of A, and
> since there are already a few known tested cases of A*, and they happen to
> be from the region where this cluster is most present (the Congo), it's
> looking most likely that this cluster, when an SNP is found for it, will
> make up a whole new branch in the A tree, presumably A4. That's why I took
> the liberty of labeling the sub-clusters in the xls file as A4a, A4b, A4c.
> There's a whole lot more that I have to say, not about A4, but about the
> unprecedented amount of extremely deviant modals in all major A lineages,
> in comparison to all other haplogroups except perhaps y-dna B.
> Coincidentally very appropriate for the whole discussion of the antiquity
> of y-dna A.
> By the way, Didier, at least 80% of the ysearch A samples are in fact BT,
> and a huge chunk of the legitimate A samples are close relatives. I wound
> up with just 30 good samples out of an initial 300 or something. Oh, I
> almost forgot, in the file I linked above, I distilled as best as I could
> all related samples. I think maybe just 2 or 3 related samples may have
> slipped me by.
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message