## Age of L176.2?

Expand Messages
• Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I m just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
Message 1 of 17 , Jan 4, 2012
• 0 Attachment
Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
• I found what I needed from Mike s timeline.
Message 2 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@...> wrote:
>
> Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
>
• May I ask : what did you find ?   I found what I needed from Mike s timeline. ... May I ask : what did you find ? I found what I needed from Mike s timeline.
Message 3 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
 May I ask : what did you find ?   I found what I needed from Mike's timeline. --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" wrote: > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering. >
• The middle of Mike s Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those two. And for
Message 4 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago will be sufficient.

>
>
> May I ask : what did you find ?
>
>
> I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
>
>
> --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@> wrote:
>
>
> > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
>
>
• As I recall, I saw on one of Greg s spreadsheets that Z198 was discovered to be somewhere around L176.2. Does anyone have any hope or expectation that we ll
Message 5 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
As I recall, I saw on one of Greg's spreadsheets that Z198 was discovered to be somewhere around L176.2. Does anyone have any hope or expectation that we'll see a Z198 test become available? The L176.2 group itself doesn't seem to be very big, so there may not be much interest.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@...> wrote:
>
> I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
>
> --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@> wrote:
> >
> > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> >
>
• I m Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
Message 6 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first appeared?  Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle wrote:

The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago will be sufficient.

>
>
> May I ask : what did you find ?
>
>
> I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
>
>
> --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@> wrote:
>
>
> > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
>
>

• Mike s chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 may have first appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I m sure that where it appeared is a subject of
Message 7 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have" first appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared is a subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such things, because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested who come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to rely on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years ago migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible to make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available information would have a better answer.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of
> > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those
> > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just
> > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago will be
> > sufficient.
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking
> > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
• Thank you David. I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match. Even having tested 111 markers, I still don t have 1 exact match. Hence my curiosity. Thanks
Message 8 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
Thank you David.  I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match.  Even having tested 111 markers, I still don't have 1 exact match.  Hence my curiosity.  Thanks again for answering my question.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Carlisle wrote:

Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have" first appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared is a subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such things, because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested who come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to rely on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years ago migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible to make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available information would have a better answer.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **

> >
> >
> > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of
> > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those
> > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just
> > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago will be
> > sufficient.
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just looking
> > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

• I assume you ve tested all the applicable sub-SNPs and joined the relevant research projects. Good luck, but you should eventually get that email that says
Message 9 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
I assume you've tested all the applicable sub-SNPs and joined the relevant research projects. Good luck, but you should eventually get that email that says you have some kind of a match.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you David. I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match. Even having
> tested 111 markers, I still don't have 1 exact match. Hence my curiosity.
> Thanks again for answering my question.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have" first
> > appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared is a
> > subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such things,
> > because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small
> > number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested who
> > come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to rely
> > on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years ago
> > migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of
> > descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible to
> > make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available information
> > would have a better answer.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> > > appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of
> > > > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those
> > > > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > > > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just
> > > > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago
> > will be
> > > > sufficient.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just
> > looking
> > > > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
• Yes, I ve joined several projects & did a deep clade test and per someone s suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive. Thanks, yes, I hope as
Message 10 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive.  Thanks, yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at least a 12/12 marker match :)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM, David Carlisle wrote:

I assume you've tested all the applicable sub-SNPs and joined the relevant research projects. Good luck, but you should eventually get that email that says you have some kind of a match.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you David. I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match. Even having
> tested 111 markers, I still don't have 1 exact match. Hence my curiosity.
> Thanks again for answering my question.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **

> >
> >
> > Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have" first
> > appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared is a
> > subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such things,
> > because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small
> > number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested who
> > come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to rely
> > on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years ago
> > migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of
> > descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible to
> > make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available information
> > would have a better answer.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> > > appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:

> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the middle of
> > > > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between those
> > > > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > > > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation. Just
> > > > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago
> > will be
> > > > sufficient.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle" <davidcar801@
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just
> > looking
> > > > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

• There has not been much traffic about Z196 in this group (since early August, I believe), but Mike keeps plugging away at the TMRCA calculations, and I keep
Message 11 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
There has not been much traffic about Z196 in this group (since early August, I believe), but Mike keeps plugging away at the TMRCA calculations, and I keep updating key threads about it on the forums to which I can post (in most cases, as "razyn").  Those currently include the following:

I don't post on the RootsWeb Genealogy-DNA-L list, but I read its archives, and it's a good one to monitor.  Debate about the relative merits of different approaches to TMRCA calculations seems to be carried on at a higher level there than elsewhere.  Only a small part of that debate touches upon our Z196 SNP; but refinement of the technique for dating one SNP will to some extent rub off on another.

On Jan 5, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Joel Peres wrote:

I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first appeared?  Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?

• Wow, there seems to be a lot of info there, thanks for sharing!
Message 12 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
Wow, there seems to be a lot of info there, thanks for sharing!

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Richard Hulan wrote:

There has not been much traffic about Z196 in this group (since early August, I believe), but Mike keeps plugging away at the TMRCA calculations, and I keep updating key threads about it on the forums to which I can post (in most cases, as "razyn").  Those currently include the following:

I don't post on the RootsWeb Genealogy-DNA-L list, but I read its archives, and it's a good one to monitor.  Debate about the relative merits of different approaches to TMRCA calculations seems to be carried on at a higher level there than elsewhere.  Only a small part of that debate touches upon our Z196 SNP; but refinement of the technique for dating one SNP will to some extent rub off on another.

On Jan 5, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Joel Peres wrote:

I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first appeared?  Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?

• What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it s on the draft tree, and is available to order. I see you re negative for L176.2 and M153.
Message 13 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it's on the draft tree, and is available to order. I see you're negative for L176.2 and M153.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per
> someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive. Thanks,
> yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at least a
> 12/12 marker match :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I assume you've tested all the applicable sub-SNPs and joined the relevant
> > research projects. Good luck, but you should eventually get that email that
> > says you have some kind of a match.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you David. I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match. Even having
> > > tested 111 markers, I still don't have 1 exact match. Hence my curiosity.
> > > Thanks again for answering my question.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have"
> > first
> > > > appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared
> > is a
> > > > subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such
> > things,
> > > > because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small
> > > > number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested
> > who
> > > > come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to
> > rely
> > > > on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years
> > ago
> > > > migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of
> > > > descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible
> > to
> > > > make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available
> > information
> > > > would have a better answer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> > > > > appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the
> > middle of
> > > > > > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between
> > those
> > > > > > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > > > > > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation.
> > Just
> > > > > > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago
> > > > will be
> > > > > > sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, vernade didier
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle"
> > <davidcar801@
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just
> > > > looking
> > > > > > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
• I ve never heard of L629, is it downstream of Z196? I m at work so I don t have access to our yahoo group page right now.
Message 14 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
I've never heard of L629, is it downstream of Z196?  I'm at work so I don't have access to our yahoo group page right now.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Carlisle wrote:

What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it's on the draft tree, and is available to order. I see you're negative for L176.2 and M153.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per
> someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive. Thanks,
> yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at least a
> 12/12 marker match :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **

> >
> >
> > I assume you've tested all the applicable sub-SNPs and joined the relevant
> > research projects. Good luck, but you should eventually get that email that
> > says you have some kind of a match.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you David. I still have yet to get 1 12 marker match. Even having
> > > tested 111 markers, I still don't have 1 exact match. Hence my curiosity.
> > > Thanks again for answering my question.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:

> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mike's chart, available in the Files section, shows Z196 "may have"
> > first
> > > > appeared between 1800 BC and 800 BC. I'm sure that where it appeared
> > is a
> > > > subject of debate between those who concern themselves with such
> > things,
> > > > because it happened so long ago, because there are a relatively small
> > > > number of people who have been tested, because more people get tested
> > who
> > > > come from Britain that who come from Europe, and because you have to
> > rely
> > > > on guesses about migration patterns. Then if a Z196 living 2000 years
> > ago
> > > > migrated in a way contrary to the general pattern, and then had lots of
> > > > descendants, then the picture gets distorted. But it's still possible
> > to
> > > > make a guess, so maybe the people who study all the available
> > information
> > > > would have a better answer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm Z196+ (N94262) therefore is 1300 BC when this SNP may have first
> > > > > appeared? Also, does anyone know where it first may have appeared?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The middle of Mike's Z196 Coalescence age is 1300 BC, and the
> > middle of
> > > > > > his SRY2627 Coalescence Age is 900 BC, so L176.2 would be between
> > those
> > > > > > two. And for my purposes, I don't care about the difference between
> > > > > > Coalescence age and a modal or interclade based TMRCA calculation.
> > Just
> > > > > > telling my family gathering it happened over 2-3 thousand years ago
> > > > will be
> > > > > > sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, vernade didier
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > May I ask : what did you find ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found what I needed from Mike's timeline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, "David Carlisle"
> > <davidcar801@
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are there any rough estimates on the age of L176.2? I'm just
> > > > looking
> > > > > > for some approximate number to tell a family gathering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

• According to the draft tree, it is downstream. But it may only be found in a small group of people.
Message 15 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
According to the draft tree, it is downstream. But it may only be found in a small group of people.

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813059

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> I've never heard of L629, is it downstream of Z196? I'm at work so I don't
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it's on the draft tree, and
> > is available to order. I see you're negative for L176.2 and M153.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per
> > > someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive. Thanks,
> > > yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at least a
> > > 12/12 marker match :)
> > >
• oh Wow, I thought Z196 was terminal, I guess not. Do you happen to know the current geographic distribution of L629? Is it Iberian? Central/Northern
Message 16 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
oh Wow, I thought Z196 was terminal, I guess not.  Do you happen to know the current geographic distribution of L629?  Is it Iberian? Central/Northern European? Northwest European?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM, David Carlisle wrote:

According to the draft tree, it is downstream. But it may only be found in a small group of people.

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813059

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> I've never heard of L629, is it downstream of Z196? I'm at work so I don't
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **

> >
> >
> > What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it's on the draft tree, and
> > is available to order. I see you're negative for L176.2 and M153.
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per
> > > someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive. Thanks,
> > > yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at least a
> > > 12/12 marker match :)
> > >

• You ll have to google it when you get home, or maybe someone with knowledge will chime in. It may be a private SNP, applicable only to one family. I just saw
Message 17 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
• 0 Attachment
You'll have to google it when you get home, or maybe someone with knowledge will chime in. It may be a private SNP, applicable only to one family. I just saw it there when I looked at the draft tree earlier today.

--- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@...> wrote:
>
> oh Wow, I thought Z196 was terminal, I guess not. Do you happen to know
> the current geographic distribution of L629? Is it Iberian?
> Central/Northern European? Northwest European?
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > According to the draft tree, it is downstream. But it may only be found in
> > a small group of people.
> >
> > http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=99813059
> >
> >
> > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've never heard of L629, is it downstream of Z196? I'm at work so I
> > don't
> > > have access to our yahoo group page right now.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Carlisle <davidcar801@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What about L629? Does that apply to you? I see it's on the draft tree,
> > and
> > > > is available to order. I see you're negative for L176.2 and M153.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In R-P312Project@yahoogroups.com, Joel Peres <joelfrancisperes@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I've joined several projects & did a "deep clade" test and per
> > > > > someone's suggestion, I tested for Z196 and came back positive.
> > Thanks,
> > > > > yes, I hope as more people get tested that eventually I'll get at
> > least a
> > > > > 12/12 marker match :)
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.