Talk:Haplogroup R1b

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

Description

A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.

Rationale

• My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.

There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A General Mess

This article is a mess and is in desperate need of revision by someone who knows what he or she is doing. There is a lot of unsubstantiated and unsupported info here and what looks like private theory or possibly some form of original research (despite Wikipedia's "NOR" policy).

The subclades portion of the article also reads like an advert for Ethnoancestry, a dna testing company. Stevo343 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What part? Could you be specific?

I have a serious problem with R1b1c10, that is still a "private" haplogroup by all standards (i.e. it has not been located in enough people to make up a solid haplogroup worth mentioning. The same can be the case with the subclades of R1b1c9, that have been located in very few unrelated individuals.

With all these I'd rather delete all mention of put them in a single prargraph together with the other private haplogroups: R1b1c1, R1b1c2, R1b1c3, R1b1c5 and R1b1c8.

I'd also like to expand the section on R1b1b and R1b1a, but the information available, at least to the public, is limited.

Now, R1b1c7 and R1b1c9 are well attested haplogroups. But they have been attested solely by commercial testing companies (Ethnoancestry?) and not by peer reviewed studies, like R1b1c6 and R1b1c4. This actually causes a great ascertaining bias because it seems most people having their DNA tested are British, Irish or otherwise of Northern European ancestry, while R1b and R1b1c is widely distributed in all Western Europe and as far East as Turkey in significative apportion.

How to deal with this problem. The only solution I can see is mentioning it.

Obviously the fact that you have inaugurated this talk page says a lot of the way this article has been created and modified. --Sugaar (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem(s) I see is that so far investigations did not really bother or were unaware of making any subdivision to R1b or R1b1c. The available publications of subclades are too specialistic to be generally accessible and even the naming convention varies considerably. This does not mean that available assessments are wrong by definition. It would be wise to leave speculation out as much as possible, albeit without removing information on distribution patterns that could be valuable, and in the meanwhile await forthcoming publications. Rokus01 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sugaar - I agree with what you wrote. The subclades section needs serious revision and really probably should just be deleted and replaced with a single paragraph. I think we would be best served in an encyclopedia article on a y-haplogroup such as R1b by sticking with peer-reviewed scientific studies and dispensing with speculation and/or what amounts to original (and questionable) research. One of the problems with this article now is that of "too many cooks". Another is "dueling edits," where one person deletes something and its original author just comes back and reinstalls it. Some of the subclades stuff reads like self-promotion, that is, it was put there by a member of that subclade to push a claim about his own ancestors (i.e., as "vikings", etc.).Stevo343 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ISOGG, that is a really accepted reference, lists all the mentioned subclades plus some others. I have no question wether R1b1c9 and R1b1c7 exist, while I do have doubts about the real extent of their distribution because commercial genetic testing is heavily biased in their samples towards the British Islands (and in general people of northern European ancestry).

I strongly agree that claimin "Viking ancestry" is silly, specially on such feeble grounds. And that such claims by commercial testing companies should clearly be ignored here in Wikipedia.

I think that R1b1c4 and specially R1b1c6 are well documented by peer-reviewed studies.

I think that "private" haplogroups should be skipped or just briefly listed to explain the lack of reference for those numbers. A warning should be added to R1b1c9a,b and R1b1c10 in the sense that they are defined by very very few cases and hence (even if ISOGG disagrees) they are nearly "private" (i.e. not really a serious haplogroup).

I agree with intensely reducing the span of text dedicated to such dubious clades and to clarify for the reader which subclades are product of peer-reviewed research (R1b1c4,6)and which are part of commercial testing "research" (R1b1c7,9,10) explaining its sample bias.

See my proposal below. --Sugaar (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 - What standard of documentation should be used for a distribution pattern? This is an encyclopedia article, after all, and encyclopedia articles are not really supposed to be "cutting edge." What sort of source, other than a peer-reviewed, scientific study, would be sufficiently reliable for establishing R1b distribution patterns? I definitely agree that speculative stuff has no place in this article.Stevo343 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole subject is cutting edge and should be presented as such. Agreed, the samples and publications are still few and even less studies based on the database are peer reviewed. Distribution patterns are very interesting, still rarely prone to definite conclusions yet. However, I can see another serious risk here, that the increased rate of investigation render current conclusions obsolete very rapidly, peer reviewed or not. Wikipedia should not turn either into a garbagepot of obsolete results, probably supporting obsolete theories. Still, the samples are there and though we have to be careful of the interpretation, I think numbers don't lie. Baseless claims can be recognized and removed easily. Rokus01 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users, especially one, is introducing marginal opinions about R1b as mainstream. He is the type of people that is most destructive of Wiki. If someone else here knows about the subject just see it yourselves. I have already had it. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for subclades

First of all, give due relevance to R1b1b. While it has not been as much studied as R1b1c, it is a clearly important subclade. (Additionally list R1b1a as "private" and apparently limited to Sardinia).

For R1b1c:

1. Explain well that it has (like mtDNA H) a starlike structure. What means a fast expansion from a single origin, followed by relative stability (I hink I can find a source for this but refers to mtDNA H, not R1b1c - do you have one for Y-DNA?). Here we could mention the mainstream theory of post-Glacial Magdalenian origin (as it's the one we can provide sources for).
2. Give due relevance to peer-reviewed clades R1b1c4,6.
3. Make a subsection for commercially found clades (R1b1c7,9,10). Reduce the extension, supress popular/commercial "Viking-like" claims, clarify the sample bias and emphasize that this sample bias may affect the real distribution of the clades, mention the reduce number (quasi-private) of R1b1c10 and R1b1c9a,b (little more can be said of these but that they are rare). But do not supress them in any case: just clean up.

What do you think? --Sugaar (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Specify "Viking-like claims". To my knowledge, the gene known to have spread by Vikings to the coasts of England, is R1a1. Moreover, this claim is sourced. Rokus01 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's doubtful the Vikings represented any one haplogroup or haplotype of haplogroups. I'd say the Nordic countries in Viking times were composed of the three main types we see today there; R1b1c9, R1a1 & I1a. Additionally, more and more researchers are beginning to make the claim that all three of these haplogroups (or which ever were "Scandinavian") could also be found in the British Isles in some amount prior to any "Viking" settlements. Nagelfar (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Vikings were a mixture of different haplogroups and R1a1 was only one. This haplogroup is not even restricted to the Vikings (some investigations even suggest it might have reached the Americas through the Bering corridor), although some characteristics of this group seem to point at either a very long local development or a more recent founder effect in Scandinavia (as explained in various publications). However, this kind of characteristics to a certain populations certainly contribute to the reconstruction of migration patterns. Even though I agree the concept of a typical "viking haplogroup" is not current, the viking pattern has been detected along the British coastal areas. Funny by the way, since this kind of investigation also invalidate earlier assumptions of the alleged Scandinavian "germanization" of Northwestern Europe during the Great Migrations. Indigenous pre-Viking R1a1 is considered virtually absent in Britain. The same applies to many areas west of the Vistula, generally considered a genetic barrier, at least from east to west and to this particular gene. Thus, to me the "viking claim" for this gene is not completely void to people of English descend. That's why I am still puzzled by the argument against "viking-like claims". Rokus01 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been away and now I'm not sure anymore what I meant exactly with the phrase "Viking-like claims". Surely I did not just mean Viking origin claims but also Chingis-Khan-like ones (like that U'Neill issue that seems not very clear to my critical eye. But well.

The case with popular (or rather commercial) "Viking claims" is that it's not possible to take apart what is Viking (Dane) from what is Anglo-Saxon (NW German): they have virtually the same haplotype distribution now and surely in the past.

Additionally, haplogroups can well have arrived to a specific localtion in several waves. If, R1a1 has a marked correlation with Indo-European expansion, you cannot say "it's Viking" - why not Celtic? Celts are as Indo-European as Vikings and they arrived from Central Europe, where that marker is as frequent or more than in Denmark.

We should be careful to abide to the facts and leave the populist commercial neo-myths aside. You can't really know from your haplogroup the exact origins of some unknown great-great-...-grandfather, as comercial testing companies claim. But we can get a decent idea of the ancestry of a population based in the collective "cake" of haplogroup frequencies and its correlations with neighbour and even distant peoples.

Just that: avoid as much as possible the hype and myths of commercial testing. Try to abide to peer-reviewed studies. --Sugaar (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New phylogenetic tree

After April 2nd[1], a new phylogenetic tree of human Y-Chromosome haplogroups has been published, and along with the insertion of new polymorphisms into the tree, some major changes compared to the previous trees have taken place, especially when it comes to TMRCA of the haplogroups ancestor to R1b. While our article estimates R1b originated some 30,000 ago, according to the new data Haplogroup R1 originated only 18,500 BP[2]. That means R1b cannot be linked to the Cro-Magnon or to European Upper Paleolithic anymore, since R1b probably originated not much longer than 10,000 ago. This article is going to need some serious rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.132.63 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop re-adding the section about the Paleolithic origins of R1b. It is not supported by current data anymore. The section reports R1b originated 30,000 years ago even though the latest study on the phylogenetic tree of human paternal lineages indicates R1* originated only 18,500 years BP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.122.96 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Someone should alert National geographic and IBM. Brecause their web site still states R1B is Paleolithic. Plus it makes sense it is oldest and most prevalent haplotype in Europe. What is your theory? A recent mass invasion how stupid. All the bog bodies in northern europe are exclusivly R1B and nothing else. Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.245.242 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"R" Y-DNA more fertile with mtDNA "H" haplogroup...?

In a recent posting in the Y-haplogroup "I" discussion group Ken Nordtvedt says a Dienekes paper has suggested that haplogroup R1b might be so widespread in Europe because it is more fertile with mtHaplogroup H than other kinds of Y-DNA:

"Now there's a mechanism to explain how S28 and S21 ydna, having such a recent MRCA as I found in initial examination, could so quickly sweep western Europe as some say it has done. Dienekes has a paper saying R ydna combined with H CRS female mtdna is more fertile than I ydna combined with H CRS female mtdna. At least that's how I read his abstract.

This could explain the relative decline of all that early S23+/M223- I in north west Europe as suggested by the Lichtenstein cave data.

I hope someone will read the paper and give the list a down-to-earth summary of its conclusions on this."[3]

Very interesting, we'll have to keep up on this. 67.5.156.78 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mtdna is meaningless as most women were traded as slaves as in the case in iceland. Most countries in europe and amongst akenazis the women are identical basically a mish mosh of differnt haplotypes. The difference is the men and that has always been. Jews have highest european levels of their women more so than the british isles and scandanavia with ireland having very high female middle eastern dna. European Jewish women having no middle eastern dna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.245.242 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very uninformed statement, if mtDNA is meaningless, it wouldn't code for anything, which it does, if it were meaningless, it would be 100% evenly spread, it is not, H predominates in Europe, there has to be something behind this, saying a universality between cultures and sexual selection or not has little bearing on this. 67.5.156.165 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Attractiveness is male based women can only have 20 kids a year while a man can have a thousand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC) There is a false emphasis on women for good looks I think with a gut instinctt that good looks is more male based. The best looking people are from countries with good looking men as they are more prolific and and able to mate. a good looking women can have 20 kids a man 1000 kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are the best looking people? and in which country do they live? Sorry but that is a highly subjective point. But if good looking means better reproduction, then it is the Chinese. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.111.16 (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

On R1b's age

No one can pretend it is possible to link R1b to any known ancient culture or people simply because we don't know as of now when did it originate. And you can't say that R1b is safely linked to the Paleolithic European cultures because (1) 18,500 BP is R1's, not R1b's, age and as far as we can say, it is not at all unlikely anymore that R1b is 9,000 years old or less (since there are 18 mutations separating R1b from R1, I would say that is is actually the most probable hypothesis); the question on when did the population from which descends a heavy part of the western European migrate from an unknown lost homeland to Europe in now unknown, since the link o the Cro-Magnon and the Aurignacian and the Gravettian cultures (both older than 20,000 years ago) has been destroyed; (2) if we consider that R1b originated somewhere outside of Europe, say Central Asia, as it is assumed nowadays, and its parent haplogroup R1 is in fact 18.5k old, it can't be linked to cultures which originated around the same time in Europe, since some thousands of years would have passed since R1bs would feel compelled to leave its place of origin and reach its current main "homeland", western Europe.

18,500 ago: the R1 mutation takes place God knows where, and becomes predominant amongst a given population (God knows which);

x<18,500 years ago: Some thousands of years go by as slowly, one by one, the 18 mutations which distinguish R1 from R1b originated and give rise to this new haplogroup in a Central Asian population.

y<x<18,500 years ago: Some unknown amount of time later, for whatever reasons, a part of such Central Asian population starts to move west and, God knows when, and which or how many paths were chosen, they finally reach the current main homeland of R1b, western Europe.

Behold that we don't know when R1 gave rise to R1b, and then when did R1b leave Central Asia for Europe and became predominant amongst western Europeans. For such reasons the "link" between R1b and Paleolithic Europe should now be considered weak and hypothetical at best. To say that R1's current estimated age somehow "still confirms" such "link" is to give evidence of poor grasp of the not actually complicated few evidence we have on this respect thus far.189.70.208.92 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

18.500 BP is about the date R1b originated from R1. What references do you have to claim otherwise? Read this [4] (publication accepted 21 November 2006): "Previous studies of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in Eurasian populations have suggested a Paleolithic origin for the Y-haplogroup R1. The origin of the haplogroup R1-M173 is believed to predate the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup dispersed from east to west, possibly 30 kya, along with the spread of the Aurignacian culture. Different demographic processes have been proposed to account for the current distributions of subclades R1a and R1b in European populations." Rokus01 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very funny you quote a pay-publication of Karafet et al that does not focus on the R1 group at all. Nobody quotes this paper to contradict a Paleolithic origin of R1b and I suspect some WP:OR creeping in here on this subject. M173 is still clearly paleolithic to me, thus R1b derives from a paleolithic population. Please come up with a clear reference that R1b is younger than 10.000 BP (Paleolithic) before you reinstate this new theory. Rokus01 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Only funny thing here is that you remove material from article because the sources are in what you call "paysites". Those sources point to peer reviewed studies. Maximum age for R1b is less than 18.5K years, R1 ("father" of R1b did not originate in Europe. R1 emerged 18.5K years ago somewhere in central Asia. Here's quote from link you removed from the article and labeled it as "paysite" link, Genetic Landscape of the Central Asia and Volga–Ural Region by Khusnutdinova et al

These findings are very important because they suggest subdivision of R1b3 lineage into yet undefined lineages, one of which (ht15) is mainly confined to Europe. In this regard decreasing frequency cline of haplogroup R1b3 from western Europe towards eastern Europe and unexpectedly high frequency of this lineage in the eastern most fringe, i.e. southern Urals (>82%) and in Central Asian highlands among Tajiks, Kyrgyz and Altai (>50%) (Kivisild et al., 2003) imply that R1b3 Y-chromosomes in these two eastern regions cannot be associated with the west east population expansion from Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.137.2 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The "funny" thing is that you referred to a paysite you obviously did not read, as if you did not expect others would try to check. None of your claims, except for the date, are supported by the article. The other article of Kivisild is mainly on mtDNA and does not make any difference between R1b of Western Europe or Asia. I wonder were you got your data from, having both articles here in front of me. You just yell something and wave with papers to give yourself some false authority. Rokus01 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The dating has now been consistently revised throughout in line with the latest scholarly studies. Please do not remove links to scholarly studies on the ground that they are "paysites". References to print publications are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia, as long as they are reputable, which refereed journals naturally are. There is no demand by Wikipedia that the material should be also available online, either as an abstract or full text, but it is a courtesy to readers to supply a link to an abstract if one is available online. --Genie (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bog Mummy

Please excuse me if I am wrong but I clearly remember that bog Mummies that were over 10 thousand years old in Scandanavia/Denmark being identified as Le Tenne Celtic and R1B. They even found people gentically similiar still living in Denmark. My understanding is the bog mummies are all R1B and they represent the oldest corpses from Europe. One need only haplotype them to know who originally colonized Europe if this was truly in dispute which I believe it is not. They have haplotyped Cro Magnon skull and have found it to be haplotype N which is close to native americans. Native Americans are O which is an offshoot of R1B. Native Americans also have been discovered to have originated from Siberia.

My feeling is rather than speculate haplotype actually perform a test for haplotype. I'd be interested to in haplotpes of celebrities too. George Clooney Tom Cruise Hitler Elvis? I know hitler had relatives. Haplotype all the lead nazis relatives or bones. Hair samples too could be haplotyped. So DNA could be made available easily. If a person could compile such a book it would be a best seller and very enlightening? What is Prince Charles? Stalin? Napoleon? Obtain dna from a bone or relative? I know they did it with maternal how about paternal with the romanovs? I remember they did it with stalin he was haplotype U like Utzi the frozen dude found in Austria who was shot in the back with an arrow? Was Nero or caesar J I or R1b. The insight into history would be amazing are there people alive who are similar to napoleon who are they where are they? Old centurion bones in rome haplotype them. There is where you will find all your answers to history? What were the ancient egyptians pharoahs haplotype J I E do they have genetic relatives in the modern day? haplotype dna from mummies in Eygpt? Are ancient Jews the same haplotpe as modern Jews? Ancient persians and modern the same what is are the differences? What are the vikings? Also load them in datbases and eventually some one will pop up with similiar genes a relative. If hitler was found to be haplotype J wouldnt it change your view of history? or Nero C or napoleon D Some of the pharaohs J? There might be a lot of suprises what if we found a pharoah or one of his slaves r1a or r1b? Or that himmler was J? Instead of guessing? find out! we have the technology it should be fairly easy. Original Ideas brought to you by haplotype r1b —Preceding B originality for youunsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See Bog bodies for more accurate dating. La Tene Culture starts about 450 BC, not 10,000 years ago. I agree that aDNA studies are helpful. --Genie (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

R1b origins

R = ~ Iranian plateau .R1 = ~ Central Asia ...R1a = Central Asia ~ Black Sea ...R1b = Anatolia ~ Western Europe .R2 = ~ Indian subcontinent

R1 (M173) the ancestor of R1a & R1b should have its own article, so we end this confusion. Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be revised to focus on the topic of where R1b first appeared. Currently it barely touches on the origins of R1b and instead seems to be focused on its history in Western Europe. In my opinion, only the third paragraph is relevant to the topic, the first two paragraphs should be moved to the article 'Genetic history of Europe' and the last paragraph belongs in this article but under 'Distribution'.

I. Dupandunlop argued in 2002 that Basque alleles and hence haplogroup R1b1b2 were the most representative of Paleolithic European population. In this she followed previous research done fundamentally on mitochondrial DNA. Many other authors have followed her conclusions for further research, assuming thereafter that R1b1b2 is of Paleolithic origin.

Based on R1b frequency and variability, most researchers considered the genetic pool of western European countries - Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, north Italy, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom - to date back to Paleolithic times, noticing the overlap between R1b previously estimated age (about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago) and the European Upper Paleolithic. The hypothesis met apparent confirmation in the fact that the Basques, who traditionally have been considered descendants of the European Paleolithic strata, have one of the highest frequencies of R1b in the world.

By 2008, T. Karefet et al., based on the latest discoveries on polymorphisms, rearranged the human paternal phylogenetic tree by adding one new haplogroup and altering some of the estimated ages of previously known haplogroups, including the parent haplogroup to R1b, R1, now considered to have originated 18,500 BP..

Studies from Volga-Urals on the border of Europe and Asia have revealed high frequencies of R1b1b2 in Bashkirs, although the genetic diversity is low, suggesting a founder effect.

This is what I propose:

R1b was originally assumed to originate in western Europe where it reaches its highest frequencies. However, research now shows that R1b's variance increases as one moves east, leading to the competing view that R1b likely originated further east than previously thought. Geneticists now generally believe that R1b had its origin in Central Asia or Southwest Asia.

By 2008, T. Karefet et al., based on the latest discoveries on polymorphisms, rearranged the human paternal phylogenetic tree by adding one new haplogroup and altering some of the estimated ages of previously known haplogroups, including the parent haplogroup to R1b, R1, now considered to have originated 18,500 BP..

Thoughts? Onrswan (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completly. It should be left as it was. Wad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.43.243 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the responsability of Wikipedia is to provide the most accurate information possible and not propagate outdated and incorrect theories. Look at the date of your source. It's from 2002. Genetic research has progressed a lot over the last six years and it has been shown that a Western Europe origin is highly unlikely because variance declines as one moves from east to west. This research has been accepted by ISOGG which is a respected genetics source with up-to-date research information. Onrswan (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using marginal opinions drawn from commercial sources, not serious institutions. You are putting marginal opinions first to delete mainstream opinions. Wad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.132 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true. ISOGG is not a commercial site and it's used by many Wikipedia articles for up to date research information. I notice that you didn't delete the R1b tree which is also provided by ISOGG. If you truly believe that ISOGG is a commercial site why didn't you delete that as well? Karafet is not a commercial source either.Onrswan (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

M167 (SRY2627)

Please update with new Lopez-Parra study. It places a higher concentration (48%) never seen before of SRY2627 North of the Pyrenees in Val D'Aran. Places the Central Pyrennes as the possible birthplace of the subclade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.170.49 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of R1b distribution is wrong in Spain

Look at this recent study. R1b is as big in the south as in the north and in some cases bigger. In fact Eastern Andalusia shows one on the highest concentrations. Overall the biggest concentrations are in the East to the country, being lower in the West. On the other hand the informaton regarding Portugal as having more than 90% of Rb1 is some places is completely wrong. Somebody should correct those values. Note that Rb is analysed in different subclades.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/ST5ONRBvNdI/AAAAAAAAAcE/pbcSablyx50/s1600-h/0.jpg

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.111.16 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That map presented is nonesense. It derives from a very dubious study with little, non representative samples. For instance, in Castilla La Mancha you get for hundreds of thousands of square Kilometers only 63 samples of people disperesed throughout the territory. That study sucks. Usually, the North and Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula have more R1b than the rest, due to a greater than average Middle Eastern and North African haplogroups in the South and in the East of Spain. The South and the East of the Peninsula has not been in such a great isolation as the rest, as anyone who has an elementar knowledge of the History of the Peninsula will know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.202.77 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion is not true and you don't even display an "elementar" knowledge of Spanish history. The intermarriage between Spaniards and the conquering muslims has been greatly exaggerated by British historians that generally have a bone to pick with Spain due to the many conflicts the two nations had during their colonial rivalries for the Americas. I suggest you brush up on your Spanish history! Most of the remaining muslim peoples were expelled from Spain when King Philip III finally issued an edict in 1609 expelling all muslims from Spain and Portugal in 1609.--Charles A 03:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Someone retire Northern Portugal´s data in Right Sub-Title:

People of Atlantic Europe (Welsh 89%, Basque 88%, Irish 81%, Northern Portuguese 81% Catalan 79%, Scottish 77%, Dutch 70%, etc.)

This part was target of banditism

Also below:

"Recognizable instances of a modal haplotype have been noted within the R1b haplogroup.

One of the best-characterized of these haplotypes is the Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH). This haplotype reaches the highest frequencies in the Iberian Peninsula and in the British Isles. In the Iberian Peninsula it reaches 33% in Portugal (in some areas of northern Portugal it is greater than 96%). This has additionally been referenced in literature as Haplotype 15."

"(in some areas of northern Portugal it is greater than 96%)". This part was a target of banditism. I know because I research for genetic data few days ago in this article.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.235.32 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossetian "43% R1b"

Ossetians do not have 43% R1b. Rosser et al. 2000 found in a sample of 47 Ossetians 43% of Hg 1, but their Hg 1 do not equal to R1b! Hg 1 = P(x R1a1). More recent studies on Ossetians do not confirm their high frequency of R1b —Preceding unsigned comment added by XHorsx (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks as though Nasidze et al (2004) did not test for R1b, but they show that S. Ossetians do not have 43% R1. --Genie (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Africa

The thing with the R1b in the Fulani is wrong. In the report it states that the most common haplogroup in the Fulani is M-173, which is R1 not R1b. Can someone change this and the one about the Hausa. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.66.112 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone removed the Fulani. What is wrong with the figure for the Hausa? Hassan et al give 13 out a group of 32 Hausa as R1b. --Genie (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cameroon R

I have removed this section of the page until the actual position on the R tree is clarified. Several studies have found what they label R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage in Cameroon and various other places. If it actually R1* then this does not belong on the R1b page. However one reviser clearly though that it was now discovered to be R1b1c (M335). We need a reference for this.

R1*-M173 is found among the Ouldeme of Northern Cameroon in west central Africa, at a frequency of c. 40%, where it is considered to represent an early back-migration from Asia. R1*-M173 is also observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 (R1a1) and M269 (R1b1b2), are confined to Egypt and Oman. It is plausible that the African and Omani R1*-M173 chromosomes may be relics of an ancient back migration from Asia to Africa. The antiquity of the M173 backflow is implied by the total lack in sub-Saharan Africa of downstream mutations. R1*-M173 frequency reaches 40% in the Dead Sea region in Jordan

--Genie (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I now see that Wood et al 2005 (among citations above) refers to R-P25* found at remarkably high frequencies in northern Cameroon (60.7–94.7%), which must surely be the same as the R1*-M173 reported by Cruciani et al 2002. --Genie (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cameroon material has been returned to the article. --Genie (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And the other African study has been returned. That leaves the Flores study. Suggest that it should go into the R page unless there is clarification that it fits R1b. --Genie (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haplotypes

ht35

I removed the material concerning ht15 and ht35 from the "modals" section. It was unattributed (except one reference to a self-published source), and was anyway largely unnecessary in this section. A discussion of the ht15 and ht35 is probably warranted from a historical point-of-view, but it will need to be accurately written and sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineviz (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Genie (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proto indo-europeans are persons of J haplotype linked via the Nostratic languages family!??

We know that:

First of all forgive your brother for my bad english and thank you for this article

-R1 haplogroup are "paleolithic"haplotypes(0)

-The originel language of persons of R1 haplogroup is linked with Basque and dont has any link with indo-european languages(1)

-Semitic and indo-european languages are linked via the nostratic(2)languages theory and are all languages of neolithic timed origin(3)

-The haplogroup J is very present among Indians,Persians,Greeks,Indians(4)

-The linguistic aryanisation of india for example is only a linguistic process,in fact we have aryanic speaking populations as much racially different as Sindhis and Danish(5)

-Carleton Coon says: Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated. The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages.5 The plants and animals on which the economy of the early Indo-European speakers was based were referred to in words derived mainly from element B. Copper and gold were known, and the words for these commodities come from Mesopotamia.(6)

The sources are below

(0) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8432/europemaptreeta1.jpg

(1) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html

(2) Please note that these words are not borrowings but commun nostratic roots

Semitic/Indo-european

men/manne

hala/hola,hello

kassara/casser

ardh/earth

sahar/soir

ente/tu

me/mai

barr/bur

omm/madar

ab/badar

seb3a/septa

sitta/sesta

al/le

qata3/cut

batr/obturer

maridh/malade

haql/agro

thawr/taureau

qarn/corne

sarab/sarabas

keme/comme

silah/sird

yaafukh/fuukhir

wetr/water

lugha/lingua

qalb/lobos,cor

mawt/mort

rajol/ragazzo

lobb/lobos

bard/freddo

ward/rodos

wajh/visage

anf/nez

dawra/tour

dwaran/tourner

Greek/Arabic

Emena/Minni

Alla/Illa

Odhi/Hedhe

Arabic/English

Ma3na/Mean

Jorm/Crime

3eyn/Eye

Hu/His

Ha/Her

Dhak/That

Hedhi/This

Fatasha/Fetch

Qit/Cat

Arabic/French

Nahnu/Nous

Masha/Marche

Turab/Terre

Sama/Ciel

Jam3=>Gam

Somme=>Gam

Sound change o=>a et j=>g

Eardh=>ardh

Eye=>3ayn

Taureau=>thawr

Corne=>qarn

Ble=>Burr

Agro=>Haql

g=>q et l=>r

Agro=>Haql (g<=>q)(r<=<l)

Ble=>Burr (r<=>l)

(3) http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/lingwen/afil.html

The scheme on The Tower of Babel shows yet another approach to both genetic relations and dating of particular language families and protolanguages. According to its author, Proto-Indo-European was in use ca. 5000 BC, Eurasiatic ca. 9000 BC, and Proto-Afro-Asiatic ca. 10000 BC. The Nostratic language, which existed ca. 13000 BC, is said to have given birth to Eurasiatic and Afro-Asiatic.

(4) File:Haplotype middle east.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)

(5) http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101980&page=4

(6) http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/06-01.htm (also please take a look at the great J haplogroup concentration in the caucasian Daghestan)

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What a pity

This article has been absolutely destroyed. It is full of false, non reference information. Wiki is really suffering a lot in its credibility with these types of articles. Bambo.

Subclade R1b1b2a1a1

Actually, there is some information on the frequency of the subclade R1b1b2a1a1 in different regions of Spain at http://www.iberianroots.com/statistics/spain.html .

190.161.121.57 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ashkenazim-Norman"

R1b1b2a1a1d has a subclade R1b1b2a1a1d1 (defined by the marker L47), which in turn, seems to be including subclades R1b1b2a1a1d1* (defined by the marker L47 and not by markers L44, L45, L46) "[26]) and R1b1b2a1a1d1a defined by the marker L44. As of July 8, 2009, based on FTDNA tests of samples from 60 members of the R1b-U106 project who are U106+, 15 (or 25%) were found L47+, so far showing a possible "Anglo-Saxon" (or Anglo-Norman, Scottish-Norman, "Ashkenazim-Norman"[27]) cluster, probably connected with Flemish participants of the Normann Conquest of Britain, strictly based on the surnames and ancestral origins (England, Scotland, Wales, Picardy and Belarus Ashkenazim (probably descent of Sephardim)) of those tested positive.

This statement seems very biased and false. There were no Normans of an Ashkenazi origin. No people of a Jewish background took part in the conquest of England. They arrived later as part of expanding the English economy. They were also expelled a little over two hundred years later and their genetic influence in Great Britain is non-existent. The Jews that did live in England were expelled back to Europe and settled in Germany mainly. They were not descendants of Sephardic Jews and their descendants would not be found among Sephardic Jews. This statement and inclusion seem very strange to me. This DNA is clearly of a European origin and has nothing to do with Anglo-Saxons or Normans.

Among other versions of the L47* cluster origin is the version connected with Cohors Primae Frisiavonum — The First Cohort of Frisiavones who served in Britain during 103-249 AD and whose descendants could be assimilated between Brythons; one of them could be sold as slave to Radhanites passed through western slave trade route and converted to Judaism in Muslim Spain or Portugal in 9th century. As well, due to the genetic distances among the members so far L47+, the age of this cluster is probably quite old, perhaps 2,700-2,900 years. It is possible that L47 emerged not too long after the L48 "parent" cluster. Preliminary data would strongly suggest that the L48 SNP occurred only a short period of time after the U106 SNP occurred, likely 200 years or less.

Well someone is desperate to prove he is a Jew. This is like a where is waldo cartoon. Out of all the R1b1 DNA haplotypes this one has by far the most nonsense associated with it I have ever seen. Why it has been everywhere....except the Middle East. I am sure when this version is proven to be false they will think of another version that shows them being Jewish .... 76.92.210.222 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)