Why Y-DNA Haplogroup?

[darkerhorse]

Y-DNA haplogroups are like branches on the family tree. The Y chromosome is passed from father to son, so the haplogroup can be used to trace the paternal line.
R-M269I is the more specific haplogroup. R-L1066.1 is a branch of R-M269I.
The difference in reporting is probably due to a difference in the level of detail that each company reports. 23andMe probably reports R-M269I because it is more specific. Family Tree probably reports R-L1066.1 because it is more common.GB Whatsapp

I think the correct Y haplogroup is R-M269, not R-M2691. Does that make a difference?

[darkerhorse]

Y-DNA haplogroups are used to track the paternal lineage of individuals and populations. The Y chromosome is passed down from father to son, so it can be used to trace the ancestry of male individuals. The Y chromosome does not recombine with other chromosomes during meiosis, which means that it is largely passed down intact from one generation to the next. This allows scientists to identify mutations and changes in the Y chromosome that occur over time, and to use these changes to create a phylogenetic tree of human Y-DNA haplogroups.

Y-DNA haplogroups can be used to track migrations and population movements over time. By analyzing the distribution of different haplogroups in different populations, scientists can gain insights into the origins and movements of human populations. For example, the presence of certain Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe suggests that these populations migrated there from the Middle East, while the presence of other haplogroups in Central Asia indicates that these populations may have originated in Siberia.

Y-DNA haplogroups can also be used in genealogical research to help individuals trace their paternal ancestry. By identifying their haplogroup, individuals can learn more about the origins and migration patterns of their paternal ancestors, which can be helpful in genealogical research.

I don't really understand how a Y haplogroup originates.

Is there a chance mutation which then continues un-mutated for generations upon generations?

[darkerhorse]

Y-DNA haplogroups are like branches on the family tree. The Y chromosome is passed from father to son, so the haplogroup can be used to trace the paternal line.
R-M269I is the more specific haplogroup. R-L1066.1 is a branch of R-M269I.
The difference in reporting is probably due to a difference in the level of detail that each company reports. 23andMe probably reports R-M269I because it is more specific. Family Tree probably reports R-L1066.1 because it is more common.GB Whatsapp

I think the correct Y haplogroup is R-M269, not R-M2691. Does that make a difference?

Also, if M269 is more specific does that mean it's a subset of R-L1066.1?

[MarcuccioV]

Also, if M269 is more specific does that mean it's a subset of R-L1066.1?

It's the other way around. R-M269 began around 12,000 BCE, whereas R-L1066.1 started around 1900 BCE. My R-Z19 Y haplogroup is also a mutation off of R-M269 from approx 2200 BCE, but along a different path that R-L1066.1..

R-L1066.1 shows prominence to the UK (as does R-Z19) with little anywhere else. On the FTDNA R-L1066.1 project, no surnames listed were Italianesque. Mostly English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

[darkerhorse]

Also, if M269 is more specific does that mean it's a subset of R-L1066.1?

It's the other way around. R-M269 began around 12,000 BCE, whereas R-L1066.1 started around 1900 BCE. My R-Z19 Y haplogroup is also a mutation off of R-M269 from approx 2200 BCE, but along a different path that R-L1066.1..

R-L1066.1 shows prominence to the UK (as does R-Z19) with little anywhere else. On the FTDNA R-L1066.1 project, no surnames listed were Italianesque. Mostly English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

Doesn't that mean R-L1066.1 is more specific (a subset of R-M269), which would contradict what the other person wrote?

How does a Y haplogroup "begin" - from a mutation of another prior Y haplogroup?

I've also seen a "Scottish" origin for R-L1066.1. I like Scotland but it's still a disappointment as opposed to having a Mediterranean origin to my surname line. It may have deep biological roots in Scotland but it's sure been Sicilianized over the generations.

Isn't it possible that, ages ago, a man from the Mediterranean (or other region) migrated to Scotland and he or his male descendants gave rise to that Y haplogroup, making it look Scottish? I'm still in denial.

[MarcuccioV]

Also, if M269 is more specific does that mean it's a subset of R-L1066.1?

It's the other way around. R-M269 began around 12,000 BCE, whereas R-L1066.1 started around 1900 BCE. My R-Z19 Y haplogroup is also a mutation off of R-M269 from approx 2200 BCE, but along a different path that R-L1066.1..

R-L1066.1 shows prominence to the UK (as does R-Z19) with little anywhere else. On the FTDNA R-L1066.1 project, no surnames listed were Italianesque. Mostly English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

Doesn't that mean R-L1066.1 is more specific (a subset of R-M269), which would contradict what the other person wrote?

How does a Y haplogroup "begin" - from a mutation of another prior Y haplogroup?

I've also seen a "Scottish" origin for R-L1066.1. I like Scotland but it's still a disappointment as opposed to having a Mediterranean origin to my surname line. It may have deep biological roots in Scotland but it's sure been Sicilianized over the generations.

Isn't it possible that, ages ago, a man from the Mediterranean (or other region) migrated to Scotland and he or his male descendants gave rise to that Y haplogroup, making it look Scottish? I'm still in denial.

LOL. Yes, as mutations arise, that creates a new sub-haplogroup. Based on where the mutations are found is how the various subsets are organized (similar to the branches in a family tree).

The only way for the situation you describe to occur would be that a Sicilian ancestor (male or female) migrated to Scotland (or elsewhere in the UK) and over an unknown number of generations an offspring (male) returned to Sicily with the R-L1066.1 Y haplotype from a male UK ancestor.

I have a friend (half Sicilian on his paternal side, northern Italian on his maternal) that has a bit of Scottish as well -- in his case, it came from a seaman who arrived in Sicily (Messina) and remained. So any number of scenarios could be possible, from a similar situation or even something more distant in the Y-DNA direct line.

Since it originated approximately 4000 years ago, almost anything could have occurred in the meantime, even from the Roman Empire, as it encompassed the UK islands at various times. I'm sure it's found in smaller concentrations all over Europe, but likely made its way through migration from UK origins...

[MarcuccioV]

Basically it was the "lucky" gene that didn't have an all-female offspring family to cut it off. If you've researched without breaks on your Y-direct line to the 1700's, then it occurred before that point.

My R-Z19 direct line goes back to Western Germany circa the late 1500's...

[darkerhorse]

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.
[/quote]

What is IIRC?

[MarcuccioV]

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

What is IIRC?
[/quote]

I(f) I R(ecall) C(orrectly)...

[darkerhorse]

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

What is IIRC?
[/quote]

No UK ancestor in my paternal line. IIRC, I've mentioned the Scottish roots of my Y haplogroup before.

I haven't had a DNA test myself so I'm going by the Y haplogroup for a surname second cousin of my father.

Of course, there's an outside change my actual Y haplogroup differs.

[MarcuccioV]

IIRC, you mentioned a UK ancestor on your Sicilian Paternal direct (Y) line -- whoever that was is most likely the R-L1066.1 carrier. It appears to have no roots in Sicily or Italy.

What is IIRC?

No UK ancestor in my paternal line. IIRC, I've mentioned the Scottish roots of my Y haplogroup before.

I haven't had a DNA test myself so I'm going by the Y haplogroup for a surname second cousin of my father.

Of course, there's an outside change my actual Y haplogroup differs.
[/quote]

OK, got it. With no test(s) to refer to, it's kinda like flying blind...

[darkerhorse]

My understanding is that the probability of my Y haplogroup being the same is extremely high.

[MarcuccioV]

My understanding is that the probability of my Y haplogroup being the same is extremely high.

Well, it's within your family tree, at least. If there are male direct relatives between you and your father's 2nd cousin (your 3rd cousin), all with the family surname, then your Y haplogroups should match as they would all carry the R-L1066.1 through their paternal lines. The only thing that could break it up would be a direct gen that was all female, but that would break up the surname line unless one of the females had a child and did not recognize (legitimize) the father. and gave the child her maiden name..

I know it all sounds confusing, but I'm laying out the possibilities the best I can.

[darkerhorse]

I do have 3rd cousins in my surname line who I know casually.

In fact, since my paternal grandparents were 3rd cousins to each other, sharing the same surname, males on both sides of my paternal family should have the same Y haplogroup. There's quite an age range so I have male 2nd cousins once-removed and male 3d cousins in my surname line who are near my age. I don't know of any who've had DNA testing but I can ask around.

On my maternal side, I know of only one cousin (3rd) who has had a DNA test. On that side, we're interested in American-Indian ancestry and whether the Scandinavian ancestry originated in Germany, as suspected by a surname (and known German intermarriage).

If I posted a short list of questions I's like answered by DNA testing, do you suppose I'd get (m)any responses? This Genealogy topic doesn't seem so popular. Maybe if I added a language translation component...

[darkerhorse]

I'd be looking for suggestions on which DNA tests and which companies.