Archiver > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I > 2009-02 > 1235761774

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: [yDNAhgI] New Subclade of P37.2+ I2a*-Western
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:09:34 -0700

I2a*-Western (P37.2+) is a decently populous haplogroup of northwest Europe and mainly British Isles which academic researchers by and large missed in past years. 23andMe includes no ysnp to tag this population, even though its branch line separated from the rest of I haplogroup 20,000 years ago. This basically means no snp searcher in the past ever used a I2a*-Western dna sample in their searches. I1 on the other hand, having about the same length ancestral branch line separating it from the rest of the I haplogroup, has over 25 redundant snps found to tag it. Intrinsically, those two branch lines surely contain about the same number of ysnps.

I2a*-Western is most quickly identified as being that P37.2+ with 15 at DYS388 instead of the usual 13.

I2a*-Western haplogroup is therefore defined by absence of certain snps, being P37.2+ (xM26,xM423)

I2a* is very young with an MRCA age of less than 3000 years.

A solid subclade was recently found which is almost exclusively British --- I2a*-Western-Isles
It has the following shifts from the I2a*-Western modal form (given in backets)

DYS385b = 16 [ 15 ]
DYS439 = 13 [ 12 ]
DYS389 = 13,29 [14,30]
H4 = 9 [ 10 ]
DYS635 = 20 [21 ]
DYS520 = 19 [ 20 ]

I found this and some other new clades after incorporating over 2000 new haplotypes into my database. Something strikes me odd about this incorporation: I'm not sure the statistics of the marker repeats for haplotypes in various clades is the same for the new source as from my earlier sources. This makes me nervous that different labs may be measuring some marker repeats differently? That would be a nightmare for those of us collecting data from multiple sources. The other explanation could be intrinsically different clientele having their data in the different databases. This above clade, for example, has an inordinate fraction of its membership from the new source; that's probably why it was only recently identified.


This thread: