Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Beatty L159.2/CCGG

Expand Messages
  • Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ
    I m not sure about Scotland but Gleason is also known as an Irish surname, example been the Irish actor Brendan Gleeson. Ó
    Message 1 of 16 , May 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure about Scotland but Gleason is also known as an Irish surname, example been the Irish actor Brendan Gleeson.

      Ó GLASÁIN—IO Glassane, O Glessaine, O Gleasan, Glessane, Glissane, Glissawn, Gleason, Gleeson; 'descendant of Glasán' (diminutive of glas, grey); a common surname in all the south of Ireland, especially in Cork, Limerick, Tipperary and Kilkenny; now generally pronounced Ó Gliasáin.

      Ó GLIASÁIN, see Ó Glasáin.


      On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Lineone <pdbeattie@...> wrote:

      You obviously have British connections in the ancient Gaelic line. That means that us Gaels here in the UK come from one of the early tribes here i.e. Z255 that are also L21/DF13 derived (+) but your Z255 branched off fairly early and are collateral to your remote cousins that are Z255 and L159.2+ (derived) that branched of Z255 later. Quite simple really but you are looking back to a period of probable pre-history! Hope that helps.
      Peter D Beattie
      Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:28 PM
      Subject: RE: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Beatty L159.2/CCGG

      To Whom It May Concern:

      According to FTDNA tests, I am L-159.2 Negative and according to NG’s Geno 2.0, my father’s line is being identified as R-Z255 Positive.  Can someone explain the significance of these two results?


      Enrique Treat Gleason

      From: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Beatty
      Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:55 AM
      To: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Beatty L159.2/CCGG


      Hi Peter,

      At his point I am basically ignoring L159.2, we have way too few results.  You are also correct in your assessment that groups do change and new groups are created. The analysis takes this into consideration and has the ability determine partial signatures based on the number of markers tested, specifically when assigning members to groups.

      Since you mentioned your old “Smithy” group; that group had 4 members (8, 13, 153, and 134).  You

      are now in the 255a-2223 group with a signature of 448=18 413a,b=22,23. This is 67 marker signature.  Before the 67 markers you were probably in a broad group based on 448=18 710=34,35 which became fragmented and was deleted.

      When viewing the records at the various panel levels (25,37,etc). The same four ids remain until the 111 panel.  When you display the 111 panel, id: 134 is dropped (his testing stopped at 67).  Yes, the workbook has the ability to filter all data according tested panels  and is selectable by the user.

      As for the mutations occurring as a result of environmental factors, I do not disagree. However, I do believe that determining the time and the event of the mutation can be long and arduous journey.


      From: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lineone
      Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:45 AM
      To: Beatty_Byrnes_DNA@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Beatty L159.2/CCGG


      Hi Pete

      I agree that’s the way to go in this analysis i.e. start with the general data (SNP) by IDing the Z255 main groups then top down to the detailed data L159.2 or relevant STRs such as DYS464X/448/ etc to get somewhere near our old subgroups in the old 01 Group like mine ‘Smithy’. The picture should change to some degree as you work from the 25-markers that’s likely to have other surnames within Z255 through to 67-marker that may only ID Beatty names! But at 111-makers as we have so few testees the GD relationship may well give a different picture. For example at 67-marker I have a GD0 with another testee but at 111-marker we seem to diverge opening the GD gap. I feel perhaps this should not be too unusual especially if the testees live in distant parts of the World and the effects of  other environments generate their own unique mutations. I would like to open up this subject up for general comment from all of you!

      Peter D Beattie

      Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:20 PM

      Subject: RE: [Beatty_Byrnes_DNA] Beatty L159.2/CCGG



      As for my predecessor, Yes.

      As of now, the Old Group 01 has been broken up into more defined subgroups and are basically in the 255a major group.  Some have moved to the 255b group because of the number of mutations, even though the technically fall into 255a (based on 448<=18). I suspect these may be a bridge between the two groups.

      All of the ODD group (the 39 Others) have typically made up the 255b group. Some were found to be part of 255a.

      As for the 464x distribution, there are 15 records in 255a and 4 in 255b.

      As for the testing, I completely agree, In fact when I finalize my “long” message to the group, I will be stressing upgrades.  I have already bucketed all 12 marker tests and am now considering the 25 marker people.



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.