Damnonii and M222

General discussions regarding DNA and its uses in genealogy research

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:13 am
According to Yfull the dates given for the expansion of the M222 subgroup could not have anything to do with the Damnonii. The Damnonii were a named tribe long before the M222 expansion.

The diversity of M222 came after the huge bottleneck and not before it so the haplotype diversity has absolutely nothing go to do with the origin of M222. If the dates are nearly correct, M222 is an Irish origin subgroup. I write this with the knowledge that there were no major recorded movements into Ireland between the BA and the Norman era. The Vikings had very little genetic impact.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M222/

Also, any cluster that can be dated in Ireland before the Norman invasion is likely Irish no matter which dna group they belong to.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:57 pm
dartraighe wrote:According to Yfull the dates given for the expansion of the M222 subgroup could not have anything to do with the Damnonii. The Damnonii were a named tribe long before the M222 expansion.

The haplotype diversity of M222 came after the huge bottleneck and not before it so the haplotype diversity has absolutely nothing go to do with the origin of M222. If the dates are nearly correct, M222 is an Irish origin subgroup. I write this with the knowledge that there were no major recorded movements into Ireland between the BA and the Norman era. The Vikings had very little genetic impact.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M222/

Also, any cluster that can be dated in Ireland before the Norman invasion is likely Irish no matter which dna group they belong to.


Gioiello
southern England is given as the origin of M222 due to the fact that the said haplotypes in that region have more mutations and are deemed older. I think that this is nonsense because the age of the SNP does not change because of the number of mutations in the haplotypes. We are seeing also from the Big Y tests that all samples are not producing the same number of SNPs downstream of the terminal SNP.

Under the S5556 SNP one tester has 43 SNPs and I have 32 but the age of S5556 does not change. Every individual line is different and it was suggested to us that we should divide the number of SNPs into the TMRCA to find the average years per SNP for our specific lines. I agree with this suggestion.


I would like your view on this.

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:37 pm
dartraighe wrote:Gioiello
southern England is given as the origin of M222 due to the fact that the said haplotypes in that region have more mutations and are deemed older. I think that this is nonsense because the age of the SNP does not change because of the number of mutations in the haplotypes. We are seeing also from the Big Y tests that all samples are not producing the same number of SNPs downstream of the terminal SNP.

Under the S5556 SNP one tester has 43 SNPs and I have 32 but the age of S5556 does not change. Every individual line is different and it was suggested to us that we should divide the number of SNPs into the TMRCA to find the average years per SNP for our specific lines. I agree with this suggestion.


I would like your view on this.


In this field there are many morons with a PhD, imagine how many without it. You are right. Not only the STRs mutate by chance back and forth and rotate around a modal formed at the beginning of the subclade, but also the SNPs are on average, and there is no method for calculating them on sure. Even to calculate the mean number isn't resolutive, and everything depends as on someone puts the oldest subclades. YFull use the separation from A00 at 235900 years, whereas the last Poznik propends for 275000, thus the YFull dates should be multiplied for an 1.17 factor. Only the aDNA, if the old bones could be tested as modern ones, could give us the answer, but they are tested at very low percentage and are practically useless for our purpose.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:10 pm
Gioiello wrote:
dartraighe wrote:Gioiello
southern England is given as the origin of M222 due to the fact that the said haplotypes in that region have more mutations and are deemed older. I think that this is nonsense because the age of the SNP does not change because of the number of mutations in the haplotypes. We are seeing also from the Big Y tests that all samples are not producing the same number of SNPs downstream of the terminal SNP.

Under the S5556 SNP one tester has 43 SNPs and I have 32 but the age of S5556 does not change. Every individual line is different and it was suggested to us that we should divide the number of SNPs into the TMRCA to find the average years per SNP for our specific lines. I agree with this suggestion.


I would like your view on this.


In this field there are many morons with a PhD, imagine how many without it. You are right. Not only the STRs mutate by chance back and forth and rotate around a modal formed at the beginning of the subclade, but also the SNPs are on average, and there is no method for calculating them on sure. Even to calculate the mean number isn't resolutive, and everything depends as on someone puts the oldest subclades. YFull use the separation from A00 at 235900 years, whereas the last Poznik propends for 275000, thus the YFull dates should be multiplied for an 1.17 factor. Only the aDNA, if the old bones could be tested as modern ones, could give us the answer, but they are tested at very low percentage and are practically useless for our purpose.


The last SNP in the 35 M222 SNP bottleneck and the one from which all of the M222 males expanded originated in one man with one haplotype. By creating the modal we try and determine the ancestral values of this one ancestor. The fact that there was a bottleneck suggests one family. The more births there are the more likely the more mutations, so mutations are minimal when passing one's dna in a small family group. My view is that it is during a bottleneck that a strong genetic haplotype signature is established. All the mutations that we see in M222 today are from the birth of the one SNP from which all M222 males expanded 1,800 ybp.

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 1:25 pm
dartraighe wrote:
The last SNP in the 35 M222 SNP bottleneck and the one from which all of the M222 males expanded originated in one man with one haplotype. By creating the modal we try and determine the ancestral values of this one ancestor. The fact that there was a bottleneck suggests one family. The more births there are the more likely the more mutations, so mutations are minimal when passing one's dna in a small family group. My view is that it is during a bottleneck that a strong genetic haplotype signature is established. All the mutations that we see in M222 today are from the birth of the one SNP from which all M222 males expanded 1,800 ybp.

You are right. The unique question could be to understand which was the modal of the first M222, because, by chosing the more diffused values, doesn't warrant that those were the first M222 values, because some lines of descent may have been more successful than Others. Anyway in 1800 years (if the date is reliable) mutations shouldn't be many.

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:34 am
Gioiello wrote:
dartraighe wrote:
The last SNP in the 35 M222 SNP bottleneck and the one from which all of the M222 males expanded originated in one man with one haplotype. By creating the modal we try and determine the ancestral values of this one ancestor. The fact that there was a bottleneck suggests one family. The more births there are the more likely the more mutations, so mutations are minimal when passing one's dna in a small family group. My view is that it is during a bottleneck that a strong genetic haplotype signature is established. All the mutations that we see in M222 today are from the birth of the one SNP from which all M222 males expanded 1,800 ybp.

You are right. The unique question could be to understand which was the modal of the first M222, because, by chosing the more diffused values, doesn't warrant that those were the first M222 values, because some lines of descent may have been more successful than Others. Anyway in 1800 years (if the date is reliable) mutations shouldn't be many.



Gioiello
some R1b testers are a GD of 7 @ 67 markers from the M269 modal and some are a GD of 20 @ 67 but that has no bearing on the age of M269, so that is the position with all SNPs. Two testers can be 67/67 but they show a of difference at 450 markers, which is what one can learn from the Yfull analysis of their BAM files. My 60/67 marker match at FTDNA shows a GD of 45 at 409 YSTR markers compared at Yfull and they do not consider that a close match. The TMRCA remains the same for our most recent YSNP shared which is 1,250 ybp.

The most recent SNP for M222 shared by all of them is 1,850 and that will not change no matter how many YSTR mutations each tester has under M222. Trying to determine the region that M222 originated, from the number of YSTR mutations @ 67 markers is not possible.

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:45 am
dartraighe wrote:Gioiello
some R1b testers are a GD of 7 @ 67 markers from the M269 modal and some are a GD of 20 @ 67 but that has no bearing on the age of M269, so that is the position with all SNPs. Two testers can be 67/67 but they show a of difference at 450 markers, which is what one can learn from the Yfull analysis of their BAM files. My 60/67 marker match at FTDNA shows a GD of 45 at 409 YSTR markers compared at Yfull and they do not consider that a close match. The TMRCA remains the same for our most recent YSNP shared which is 1,250 ybp.

The most recent SNP for M222 shared by all of them is 1,850 and that will not change no matter how many YSTR mutations each tester has under M222. Trying to determine the region that M222 originated, from the number of YSTR mutations @ 67 markers is not possible.


Of course I agree with you, but all my theory of an "Italian Refugium" since ten years ago was based just upon the presence of old subclades and variance. Of course the golden proof is the aDNA, and I found against all Villabruna 14000 ya.
The same has to happen for M222. Anyway one thing is a range of 18000 years (Asian R1b1-L389- and Italian R1b1-L389+) and another are 1800 years.
The problem to solve is that
R-M222 Z2972/S640 * Z2965/S6155 * Z2977/S645+35 SNPs formed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 1850 ybp
M222 formed 4300 years ago and the MRCA is only 1850 years ago, i.e. it came out from a long bottleneck.
From its distribution I'd say that the origin is in Ireland, after Scotland and Wales, i.e. the oldest cultures of the Isles.

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:20 am
What morons don't understand (amateurs but also PhD-s) is that when an only line survives a bottleneck, it is because there wasn't an only line lasted hundreds or thousands of years, but a tribe, a clan with many people whose only one line survived. So who thinks that Villabruna was the only R1b1a in Italy 14000 ya doesn't understand anything. They were many, and very likely Villabruna isn't our direct ancestor, but a close relative. So for M222: not an unique family, but a clan whose only a person survived, thus it won't be difficult finding someone on that line somewhere in the Isles between 4300 and 1850 ya (if the dates of YFull are wholly realiable, what isn't said).

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:19 pm
Gioiello wrote:What morons don't understand (amateurs but also PhD-s) is that when an only line survives a bottleneck, it is because there wasn't an only line lasted hundreds or thousands of years, but a tribe, a clan with many people whose only one line survived. So who thinks that Villabruna was the only R1b1a in Italy 14000 ya doesn't understand anything. They were many, and very likely Villabruna isn't our direct ancestor, but a close relative. So for M222: not an unique family, but a clan whose only a person survived, thus it won't be difficult finding someone on that line somewhere in the Isles between 4300 and 1850 ya (if the dates of YFull are wholly realiable, what isn't said).



I am not sure about the thousands of lines that lived and died out in the HG era. Before the farming era R1b were HGs and they could not feed a big population. Look at the number of P312 and U106 branches that have survived from 5,000 years ago to the present.

It still does not explain the reason for the bottlenecks in haplogroups during the last 5,000 years. It is something that needs a scientific study.

My point about M222 is a valid one, that the haplotype diversity occurred only after 1,850 years, so one could not say that the origin place is south west England. Perhaps one could speculate about the place of origin by studying the immediate downstream branches just under the expansion.

You are 100% right about Villabruna though. He was not the only R1b line in Italy 14,000 years ago.

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:08 am
Hi Marco, you did a good catch in testing your friend M. Basso from Portovenere, Liguria, with Y37 c/o Yseq.
13 24 14 11 11-14 12 12 10 13 14 30 18 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15-15-16-18 11 11 19-23 17 15 17 17 35-37 12 12
As the haplotype wasn't easily indentifiable as belonging to a probable subclade, and it seemed that it could be U152, above all Z56 diffused in your zone, but also U106 or even L21, I suggested to test, before any SNP, DYS492, so we would have had an answer about these possibilities.
The test lasted more than usually as to Yseq, but the answer arrived with a clear 12. Very likely no U152/Z56 nor U106. The haplotype seemed almost in the modal, but on Y12 DYS439=10 and DYS392=14 and DYS389II=30 were 4 mutations out of 12 markers, not a few. Unfortunately a close match, at Y12, Floyd, wasn't tested for any SNP, and I remained uncertain between some subclade of P312 and L21 that seemed to you probable just for a close link from the L21 found from Boattini in your zone. You were clever to risk an L21 test, that resulted positive.
In those days I was writing to my friend Dartraighe on eng.molgen, about R-L21-M222 thought from the Dumnonii from the proof of the variance, not always reliable. The problem is that M222 formed 4300 years ago as to YFull but the MRCA is only 1850 years old, thus I said Dartraighe that very likely Ireland or Scotland or Wales were at the origin, but this is only one haplotype that emerges from a bottleneck of 2500 years.
Now you think that Basso and the other two Ligurians tested from Boattini may be R-L21-M222 they too, above all for DYS392=14 which is modal in that subclade and is a slow mutating marker.
I don't know if someone remembered (certainy Rich Stevens does) when I proposed that also L21, so rare in Italy, could be born from the Italian Refugium and migrated Northward, above all for very varied and rare haplotypes in the Alpine zone as that of Argiedude, an Argentine from an Italian father.
Of course a person of 1850 years ago, when Britannia was under the Roman Empire from more than a century, might have come from everywhere, and the oldest sample upstream M222 comes from Portugal. I don't repeat as also my father-in-low from Sicily was R-L21 (Guarino, of probable Norman origin), and how Bigazzi from Florence, who thinks to be a Longobard, has a very rare haplotype...
For all that, I think it merits to test Basso for M222. After we'll see. Put on my account.
Last edited by Gioiello on Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Next

Return to General DNA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests