开云体育

What makes this Forum better, or worse than Yahoo?? Will security features slow down my postings, like Yahoo?? If not, why does it often take many hours for my Yahoo postings to appear? Best, Daryl

My interests in this group/forum format include modernization and attractability.? There is more to my intentions, though.? I want to enable more skilled and dedicated folks to take more ownership. I think it is wise in terms of off-loading some of the things I do or am expected to do, but that is NOT it. ? I want to keep the whole R1b-L513 project together and not fracture it into sub projects. That's problematic over time. I've seen it many times. Projects can have life cycles of their own (including death)? the same as volunteers can have interests and competing interests that come and go. If we have a powerful enough forum, like hopefully this one, we can have subgroups and the advocates of the various subgroups have autonomy over those.? That's it. I want you to keep the project together but implement a powerful forum like this so that subgroups can do their own things and discuss whatever test options or theories they want.? That's it. That's the deal. Let us keep the project together and not create sub-projects but do your own thing by using subgroups.? If this agreeable I'll invite everyone in the project to this forum.... when we feel like this forum is ready and setup so that people will have a good first experience. I would also continue to use the R1b project and R1b-L21 projects to get people over to here when we find new 11-13's / L513's.? We have to keep growing. That is where the best insights come from. You can see that a good implementation of subgroups is very important. Jared posted, "you would only need to subscribe to the sub-group if you wanted to join it. The main group will always be the main L513 group (I'd suggest making it [email protected] or similar), but we could form "[email protected]", "[email protected]", etc. sub-groups, if desired, for more focused discussions. We can form as many sub-groups as we want on the free plan. Main group subscribers can add themselves to sub-groups or moderators can manually add or invite them. The only limitations to sub-groups are that we cannot have sub-groups below sub-groups, they are not listed in the groups.io directory, and subscribers to sub-groups must join the main L513 group first (which is not a bad thing)." We have to be careful with the trade-offs between too much and not enough granularity. A key constraint is there is no nesting of subgroups. We'd like to shoot for the right level of granularity from the start or pulling things a part or merging things could be messy later.? An example decision point would be Z16340.? There is a large group of people under Z16340 that are Airghelli II (FGC9798).?? It could easily be justified that FGC9798 has their own subgroup but we know people are investigating Z16340 as a whole.? My personal perspective is that all early branching discussions (i.e. Z16340) be in the general/base group of this forum.? In this case, we'd create a FGC9798 subgroup instead of a Z16340 subgroup.? That doesn't mean there could also be a Z16340 Belgium and Swedish subgroup for focus on those.? However, I don't want to make that kind of decision. That's up to folks like Brad, Baudouin and Ulf, etc.? If they want a Z16340 subgroup and forgo having downstream subgroups thats up to them. Potential subgroups....? ???? 1) General or main subgroup includes everything else not listed below.? 2) Advanced DNA topics (using BAM files, evaluating SNPs, TMRCA techniques, etc.) 3) S7834 (E) 4) A8 (under L193 "A1") 5) Z17813 (under L193 "A1") 6) Z17817 (under L193 "A1") 7) ZS4584 (under L193 "A1") 8) BY651 (under L193 "A1") 9) Z16340 (includes "A2") 10) Z16357 11) BY16 12) BY17 13) CTS11744 (L705)

Brad: Good to know we concur somewhat on dating SNPs.? I plan on continuing my manual count and ageing of L513 NGS Haplogroups, so numbers could change.? What ages did you come up with? While I try to convince myself I'm on the right path I still have doubts, as past human history reveals how easy it is to get things wrong -- like the sun revolves around the earth theory!? Perhaps I need to stop trying to figure out which is the right theory, and instead try to discern which theory is most likely wrong.? For example, can we trust the radio carbon results of Rathlin1 & 2 to be accurate? I don't have any research experience with radio carbon testing, so I don't know how trustworthy it is.? If it is correct, then I may have a small problem with my L513 age figure. Rathlin1, aged to 2026-1885 BC was actually Z30233, a Son of DF21. Even if we only add another 50 years onto the youngest age of 1885 BC I'd get 1935 BC for DF21 compared to 1685 BC +/- 150 for L513.? It looks like it comes down to the minimum radiocarbon age of 1935 BC for DF21 against my maximum age for L513 of 1835 BC -- which is only a 100 year difference.? That's not much of a difference, so I have to ask myself if ?radiocarbon dating might be too aggressive and if the 95 ℅ radiocarbon confidence level leaves much more room for error. Jared: How do I opt out of receiving a copy of my posts here?? It adds a duplicate copy of my posts into my gmail thread. Best, Daryl

Maybe I'm being too selfish, but for many months the L513 Yahoo Forum has withheld many of my postings for many hours, and sometimes days. It appears to be only Yahoo's fault, but yet my L21 Yahoo Forum postings go through right away. The only difference, that I can see, between the L21 and L513 Yahoo Forums appear to be that the L21 Forum is open to the public and the L513 Forum is closed to the public. From my perspective, if we want to stay with Yahoo, and give everybody timely access, then it seems that the best solution would be to make L513 public again. We've talked about timely access, and public access to the L513 Yahoo Forum before. It appears that untimely access and our 'private' (as in non-public) status has resulted in a decrease in the volume of postings. I know it has for me, but mostly due to untimely access. Would public access to the L513 Yahoo Forum solve the timely access problem? I don't know, but if we want this Forum to remain viable then I believe it's worth it to try that route before we give up and move to another website, like dot 'io', which we previously discussed. If returning the L513 Yahoo Forum to public status doesn't solve the timely access problem, then moving to another website seems to be our only option. Either way, I think our 'private' non-public status hurts us in the long run -- for a number of reasons which have been previously mentioned. But non timely access hurts us more, firstly on the short term, and then obviously in the long term. The other day I made 4 posts: 2 appeared within a few hours, but the other two took many hours -- more than 24 hours I think. I get tired of keeping track, but I can produce exact 'sent' times for those interested. In my opinion this dna stuff is complicated enough without creating more problems for ourselves. Surely it benefits the majority to reduce those non-ydna related problems that are fixable. I've sent this at approximately 1 pm PST, on 24 July to both Yahoo and 'io' websites. Best, Daryl

Does Rosenblad break up the L193 block, per below? Or are his results unreliable? Best, Daryl ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Class1 Driver" <class1driver@...> Date: Jul 20, 2017 10:26 AM Subject: L193+ but S5982 neg for N234853 Rosenblad To: <R1b-L513-Project@...> Cc: Mike: I stumbled across N234853, Rosenblad, while looking for A5865 negative men (23 negatives in L193, 4 +s). He is A5865 negative as well as other men in subclades outside of PF6141. I'll send another posting about A5865. But N234853 may have broken up the L193 block of 9 SNPs. His SNP data says he is L193+, and S7123+, but negative for S5982, and the subclades of L193 ( neg for A3, A8, ZS4581, FGC32004, Z17813-17). Oddly he's A9* per SNP data, but I forget what the * means there. Can we rely on his SNP data? It looks like Geno ('N' in front of his kit #). Best, Daryl

Yes, your June 7, 2015 email referred to Skip's May 15, 2015 recommendation to test for a group of variants on Leroy's unique variants page. Then you 'made a wish' for them which Yseq then labelled A5862-5 because of that request. So A5865 still sits in Leroy's unique variants list. The credit still goes to you for being proactive enough to make a wish! :-) Here's an excerpt of Skip's email: [[[In my limited experience the best candidates for downstream SNPs are: 15617867-C-T 18934984-G-A 19461549-C-T 23128605-G-A followed by: 18269403-CAG-C 23123237-C-A Also 15776087-C-A 'CTS4705' is named and someone may already have a test for it. This is shooting in the dark somewhat though, very likely to miss, maybe a lucky hit.]]] The first four became A5862-5; the next two became A5866,7; and CTS4705 was already named. So, Yseq named 6 SNPs due to your make a wish. Then Mike W implemented his aggressive campaign to get as many variants as possible on FTDNA's SNP Packs -- even private/unique ones like A5865 on Leroy's unique variant's page. I'd say there's a nil chance of A5865 getting onto the SNP Pack if you hadn't made a wish! Best, Daryl

Thanks for bringing Rosenblad's SNP results to Mr. Sager's attention Mike. It will be very interesting to hear his conclusions. Not sure who you were referring to when you said 'blacklisted' -- FTDNA blacklisting Geno SNPs? I know I discarded PF6145 as a viable SNP when I was going through SNP results the other day, as the results on two men were conflicting and couldn't be right for both. Maybe all the 'PF' SNPs are not reliable? Or maybe just difficult for Big Y to read -- like PF6141 has demonstrated, as was a 'No Call' for Duncan and Dugger in the A1067 haplogroup per Yfull BAM data. On a positive note: it now appears quite apparent that SNP Pack testing gives much better results than Big Y coverage, as it can zoom in on an exact Ydna Position on the Y chromosome. This has been clearly demonstrated in A5865 where only SNP Pack testees (except McLean, 38840, who has it in his private/unique list of variants/SNPs) have resulted in positive results for it versus Big Y which only had 1 read each for A5865 for both Dugger and Duncan (above) -- and both reads were positive, but FTDNA and Yfull rejected the result because the 'read' count was not high enough. On a positive note: it now appears quite apparent that SNP Pack testing gives much better results than Big Y coverage, as it can zoom in on an exact Ydna Position on the Y chromosome. This has been clearly demonstrated in A5865 where only SNP Pack testees (except McLean, 38840, who has it in his private/unique list of variants/SNPs) have resulted in positive results for it versus Big Y which only had 1 read each for A5865 for both Dugger and Duncan (above) -- and both reads were positive, but FTDNA and Yfull rejected the result because the 'read' count was not high enough. I believe we have Duncan McLean to thank for A5865 discovery, as he ordered 'dream' tests for A5861-5 a few years ago through Yseq.net (all SNPs starting with 'A' originate with Yseq). Thanks Duncan! Mike W: Do you know how FTDNA determined that A5865 is equivalent to Z17813? When? Whenever they made that determination, I missed it -- saw no announcement about it anywhere, and didn't see it on the usual trees (I rarely check the FTDNA tree on 'MyFTDNA'). Best, Daryl

Michael: I'm not sure where you see that on Yfull. From what I see, on the link below, Yfull sees our BY207 subclade as A1069, with 6 more equivalents: FGC32127 * A5865+4 SNPs. Click on those "+4 SNPs" and a small black popup reveals those four are Z17816, FGC39651, FGC39759, Z17813. YFULL only has 4 men under A1069: 3 under A1067, and one A1069* (paragroup) -- the former 3 are Dugger (YFO8219), Duncan (YFO9454) and McDonald (YFO5328), so does that make you the latter, with ID #YFO7101? https://yfull.com/tree/R-A1069/ The problem with ageing SNPs, using an algorithm like Yfull does, is that you need lots of samples. Alex's Tree has over 20 samples to draw upon, so his Tree will automatically be more accurate than one with only 4, like Yfull's A1069 Tree per link above. If BY207 men like Galbraith, Duff, and Grant were to send their BAMs to YFull, I suspect the Yfull A1069 Tree would start to resemble Alex's Tree -- with Z17813 descending from Z17816, and A1069 descending from Z17813. One of the major hurdles with understanding our paternal roots through SNP testing is the different interpretations of SNPs. Yfull has their rigid interpretation while FTDNA has their own, and then individuals -- with more interests in our own subclades -- will have even different interpretations. Lucky for us FTDNA has Sager working on the SNP Tree (full time?), and he has access to all BIG Y BAM files and others. When we question a SNPs placement, we can present to Mr. Sager to help us sort it out. Ageing of SNPs, once sorted chronologically, is another whole different can of worms. If I may be so bold, I think the L193 TMRCA calculated by the "algorithms" are too old (100 BC), and my SNP calculations of around 250-450 AD (sweetspot of 350 AD) are more aligned with previous STR calculations. This younger age would also account for the STR homogeneity amongst L193 men. So, for clarity, it seems likely that all L193 men alive today descended from one man born no later than around 100 AD (250 AD minus 1 SNP, with the SNP rate no greater than 150 yrs: thus 250-150=100 AD). That man would be the last born SNP in the L193 block of equivalents, and of which we don't know the chronological order. But my "sweetspot" age for that same man would be closer to 250 AD (350 AD minus 1 SNP, with a likely SNP rate closer to 100 years than the 150 years given above -- so 350-100=250 AD). Best, Daryl

The link below shows a map with a region in southwest Scotland called 'Galwyddel' in c.600 AD (not called that in the 300 AD Map) http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/British-Isles-3-Anglo-Saxon-600-final-JPG-e1462557647479.jpg It seems that Galwyddel was named after a mixture of cultures -- the Gaels and the Norseman, and/or represents the Gall Goidels. My interest lies in the possibility that the Little surname could possibly be a derivative of the 'Galwyddel' region. By dropping the 'Ga' we'd be left with 'lwyddel', and that could easily change into Liddell, and then Little. Hey Leake (or anybody), has this idea already been presented by others? Does it make sense to anybody but me? Here's the link to the list of 'Isles' Maps in different timeperiods: http://www.abroadintheyard.com/maps-britain-ireland-ancient-tribes-kingdoms-dna/ Galbraith would be another name that combines Gal (Gael) with Britain (braith), to mean 'a Gaelic Briton'. In addition to the above surnames mentioned, a few other L193 surnames have come out of the southwest Scotland/Galwyddel region. In fact a large majority of L193 surnames seem to come out of southern Scotland which is probably not more than 150 miles across. My TMRCA calculations for the births of the four L193 Son subclades is approximately 200-400 AD. All four Son subclades would likely have been born around the same time -- like all established Son subclades they would likely have been born within 150 years of each other: in this case within a 150 years of the last of the 9 equivalent SNPs in the L193 'block' on Alex's Big Y chart. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=538&star=false Best, Daryl

This is a very informative thread for me, and I've learned some interesting facts from everybody. Keep it coming! I've been busy, or would have replied sooner. It seems I sometimes forget facts I once knew, or mistakenly jumble things up -- like the meaning of 'gall'. I think it was Sykes who dna sampled the Isles before he wrote his book on it (Saxons Vikings, and Celts). I still haven't finished it. I thought he sampled southwestern Scotland too, but perhaps his data was not included in the Oxford data. Here's another interesting link that gives comparative maps and data charts of the Y-DNA distribution in the Isles. R1b and L21 appear to dominate. http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml One thing of great interest that Sykes remarked on was what some people he sampled considered 'foreign' to an area in UK. Sykes wanted to keep track of geographical differences, but one man said he wasn't from that area. Upon questioning, the man revealed he originated from an area about 5 miles away (can't remember the exact miles, but was small). Naturally Sykes was astounded that this man would consider himself a foreigner to an area only a few miles from his origins. So am I astounded. Which makes me wonder what people 1500 years ago defined as a foreigner. I'm not a linguist, but language does interest me in relation to surnames and placenames. To randomly pick a name like Malcolm, it's a reference to Columba, with 'Mal' (I hope I get this right) meaning 'servant of' and 'colm' meaning 'Columba' (the Christian priest/abbot/evangelist of Scotland), or 'servant/follower/believer of Columba and his Christian message. Which reminds me, Malcolm Beg is claimed to be an ancestor of our ZS4581 Drummonds. This past winter we believe we discovered that Gillespie Galbraith fathered Malcolm Beg, and that Gilchrist Bretnach fathered Gillespie Galbraith. So, are the Drummonds actually Galbraiths? Best, Daryl

JBlake18: That's a question for which we don't have enough information about, and may not be answerable unfortunately. Most surnames only became common within the last 500 yrs or so. L193 man was probably born about 2700-3200 yrs ago. His descendants didn't blossom -- through 4 separate Son subclades -- until around 200-400 AD per my calculations (Yfull says about 100 BC). We call that blossoming point the TMRCA (time to most recent ancestor) -- the point in time where all L193 men alive today share the same common ancestor. SNP, or Haplogroup, ageing is not an exact science by any means at the moment. The best way to attempt to find your more recent ancestors would be through more testing, like 111 STR testing and/or SNP testing like Big Y. Doing both STR and Big Y testing should help greatly to eliminate those that are not your closest paternal relations. Surnames may not be the best way to find your closest relations. For example, my last name is Martin but through STR and Big Y testing we discovered we are likely McClains because we are the only Martins amongst many McClains and a few other surnames. Most of us in the L193>BY207>>>A1067 subclade suspect we descend from the chiefly lineage of the McClain clan, but it hasn't yet been proven. One thing seems incontrovertible: if we hadn't all done 111 STR and Big Y SNP testing, we'd still be stumbling around in the dark. For the time being it's not quite so dark, and we do see much more light than most. We may even need to take more than 111 STR tests -- when available -- to help us further, but even then a breakthrough may be reliant on new testers coming into the mix. For more detailed analysis and recommendations we'd need to know your kit # and exactly which tests you've taken to date. Best, Daryl ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "jblake18@... [R1b-L513-Project]" <R1b-L513-Project@...> Date: Sep 21, 2017 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [R1b-L513 Project] Re: Galwyddel/Lidell/Little? To: <R1b-L513-Project@...> Cc: Hello everyone, So I have been trying to figure all this out but not very good at it any help would be very much appreciated. My surname is Blake and my family has been traced to Montgomery North Carolina. There are several books about these Blake's saying they are descendants of Sir Richard Cadell who changed his last name to Blake. So what I have found so far is that I have some matches with surname Black Blake and Campbell. What I have learned is that there was once a Black Scottish clan that for some reason was no longer recognized by the clans and I think the were taken into the Lamont clan and Campbell clan. The lamont clan killed a bunch of the Campbell clan so the Campbells destroyed the Lamont clan and the Lamont clan chief is supposed to be in Australia now. I am a Y-37 so far with snp L513 and L193 and the Campbell clan on your map I think is my match with a Black in it how can I find out who came first Black Campbell or Blake? . __,_._,___

Joel: You've got your work cut out for you. Take a look at this link from Alex W's Big Tree http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=200&star=false Flucker is your closest relative there and per both your unique SNPs, which average to 4.5 (3 for Flucker, 6 for you) your common ancestor may be around 350-550 yrs ago (depending on SNP mutation rate used). Your next closest relatives are Dixon and the two Musgraves. Combining all 5 men's unique SNP, plus shared SNPs works out to roughly 5.3 SNPs -- so you all share the same common ancestor, under the BY14605 Block of SNPs, roughly 400-600 yrs ago. Your next closest relative, per Alex's Tree, is Howie who doesn't share the BY14605 SNP Block with you and the other above men. But he does share the BY411 Block with all of you, and this makes you 6 men closer to each other than all the other men under L1066. You 6 men now share a common ancestor back to about 9.8 SNPs, which could be about 800-1100 years ago -- roughly. I see that L1066 is one of the larger subclades under Z253 (Son SNP of ZZ10, which is a Son SNP of DF13). There doesn't seem to be any dominant surname there. In fact, you are the only Campbell I could see under ZZ10 which is L513's brother SNP under DF13. It was common for tenants to assume their landlords name, so this may be how you got your Campbell surname, as they were a prolific dominant group. My recent paternal Martin ancestors came from Campbelltown, Kintyre, Argyll, and one still lives there. You need many more L1066>BY411 men to Y-DNA test, if they're out there. Perhaps researching your closest paternal relatives will reveal a particular geographical pocket to exploit with feet on the ground and door to door knocking. Best, Daryl

Mike: Your Descendant Tree chart has Galbraith and McIntyre descending from Z17816, but they should descend from Z17813. Do you know how these two men came to share/test the same SNP in BY34838? Very interesting. Is this an example of where Alex's chart has fallen behind? I suspected this McIntyre was different from the other L193 McIntyres, especially since he (347690) and another McIntyre (57594) share the 640=13 STR and the latter does not share the very slow moving 434=10 which the other group of McIntyres (BY2634 suspected) share. The 434=10 STR has been seen in L193-only men who have tested positive for BY2634, including Wood, Mcintyre, Ferguson, and Wilson. It seems apparent that 434=10 is a predictor marker for BY2634 amongst L193 men. Recommendation for McIntyres: Those with 434=10 should test for BY2634, and possibly for some of the 7 private SNPs held by #676804 McIntyre. Click on the surname on Alex's chart to access private SNPs http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=10 #57594 Mcintyre should test for the BY34838 SNP held by #347690 Mcintyre. For the 7 McIntyres I've bcc'd with this email, please feel free to contact me for any clarifications. I match you all at 67 STR markers, and you are all at least L193/S5982, as I am: Darrel, George, William, Fred, Scot, Albert, Ted. See our public L513 Haplogroup Project pages here https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l513/about/background There are two types of Y-DNA mutations: STRs, and SNPs. STRs are what are used on our personal Matches pages. SNPs, often referred to as Haplogroups, are the only mutations we can use to build our paternal trees. See the left side blue background of the Descendant Tree Chart on the above link to our Background page for men descending from L193 man. L193 man was likely born around 2900 years ago, but all L193 men share a common paternal ancestor born approximately around 200 AD (my personal calculation). Best, Daryl

Check this out. N195016CampbellFinlay Campbell abt 1764 CAMPBELTOWN,ARGYLL,SCOTLAat https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L513?iframe=ysnp I couldn't find any STRs for him. He is BY13857 like Pelkey (290867, SNP Pack) and McClain ( 82167, Big Y) Can he be added to the L513 Tree with Pelkey and McClain under BY13857? I'd also like to contact him, since he shares the same MDA town of Campbelltown with me, but I don't have an email address for him. Do you? Maybe you could have him contact me. Best, Daryl

Question to anybody: Hood, B144260, and Wood, 421024, both took Big Y. Hood just got onto Alex's Tree, but preliminary, so in red. I can't find the BY34846 SNP in either of their private SNPs on Alex's Tree, so it's a bit of a mystery why FTDNA has them both as BY34846 according to our Project page under L193>>>BY2634. Neither testee knows how they are related, so they're excited to find out. Perhaps somebody will need to look at their VCF files to see if BY34846 is there. Any volunteers willing to receive their VCFs and analyze them? I've just got my phone. BY34846: Hg19, 7815367; Hg38, 7947326 Ybrowse uses 7947326 and recognizes it as BY34846. Nobody else in their block has BY34846 per Alex's Tree and Project Results page. I don't doubt FTDNA, but curious how they matched these two with same SNP. Best, Daryl

Here is the link to the new FB forum. https://www.facebook.com/groups/162623697829957/ Some people don't like FB. I don't either but a lot of people use it and it has some nice functions. I just don't think highly of "Zuck"(erberg) and the way they use data. The R1b-L513-project yahoo group will NOT be closed down, though.

Please do not go near F***book with any of my information. Joe

I will close this group down since the Facebook L513 group is now going. https://www.facebook.com/groups/R1b.L513/ Hopefully, this takes care of the lag factors people in Australia see on Yahoo groups.

-- For general R1b Y DNA questions please post on one of the two forums: R1b Y DNA Project Facebook Group - http://www.facebook.com/groups/R1b.YDNA/ R1b All Subclades Project Activity Feed - http://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/activity-feed

I try to keep the Project About/Results web page as a place to reference data. I've recently updated the overview descendants charts. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l513/about/results