L540 - A Small Y-DNA Haplogroup

21-Jan-16

Peter Gwozdz

pete2g2@comcast.net

News

 

             21 Jan 2016:  Update L540 tree, new node A9035.

 

             29 Dec 2015:  Finish update all topics.  New topic, Size of L540, rough estimate 100,000 males

 

             22 Dec 2015:  Rewrite of the topic Age of L540.  Roughly 2,100 years TMRCA

 

Abstract

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             This web document is a summary of my information about a small haplogroup of Y-DNA based on an SNP mutation named L540.  The subject is genetic genealogy.

             There is a Neighborhood table below with a list of samples (men) predicted to belong to the L540 haplogroup based on STRs, and also samples predicted to be in the STR Neighborhood just outside L540.  The samples near the cutoff (borderline STR fit) are the ones that should be tested to see if they belong to the L540 haplogroup.

             The L540 Tree shows the samples that have been tested for the branches of L540.  Prediction to the branches cannot be done with confidence by STRs, so L540 samples need to do further SNP testing to determine their branch.

             The L540 haplogroup seems to be roughly 2,100 years old, with an origin perhaps in what is now Germany.

             This web document is written for people reasonably familiar with the jargon of genetic genealogy.  If you are new to genetic genealogy you might prefer to first read an Introduction that I wrote for another of my web documents.

             My References and Sources are listed at the bottom.

 

L540 in Y-DNA Tree

             New Topic 27 Dec 2015.  Edit 3 Jan 2016.

             Rough outline of the human Y-DNA tree with ISOGG and SNP code names, showing location of L540:

        E (M96)

                E1b1b1 (M35.1)

                        E1b1b1a1 (M78)

                                E1b1b1a1b1a (V13)

                                        E1b1b1a1b1a6 (L540)

             V13 is the largest haplogroup division of haplogroup E, but L540 is relatively small.

             Link to an  up-to-date tree with more V13 & L540 detail:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/

             Steve Fix is now heading a project to discover new branches of V13, using Big Y data.  New branches are showing up almost monthly.  His V13 tree is at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D9WaPOZn_0l5GKtqXR0PbbxEir2o1t0e2HO-SJ2GboI/edit?pli=1#gid=2080530255 and discussion can be found at:

http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=3657.msg36427#new.

             The FTDNA tree does not use L540, placing the samples in haplogroup S3003, a branch of V13.  L540 is the main branch of S3003;  L540 has all but one of the known S3003 samples.

 

L540

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             L540 is the code name for an SNP that was discovered in my WTY.  L540 was announced 29 March 2011.  On 27 Apr 2011 I demonstrated that L540 defines a new haplogroup branch of V13.

             I use the code name L540 for the SNP, for the associated  haplogroup, and for the samples (men) in that haplogroup.

             This haplogroup was predicted as cluster C based on STR correlations in 2008.  When I originated this web page in early 2010, I coined the name V13C, renaming it L540 on 30 Apr 2011.  Cluster C, also called C type, is the STR equivalent of L540.

             The Neighborhood table below has my predictions for L540 (C type).  There are 25 samples that have tested L540+ (27 Dec 2015).  In addition, there are 18 C type samples that have not taken the SNP test;  I predict about 15 of them would test L540+.  Finally, there are several marginal samples (STRs close to the C type cutoff);  I suppose another 5 or so of those would test L540+.  That’s roughly 45 known members of L540.

 

L540 Tree

             Update 16 Jan 2016.

             L540 Tree in conventional outline format.  Click on a link in this tree for more discussion about that SNP or sample (male ancestor family name).

 

V13

                                                                  V13 has about 80 equivalent SNPs

             Other V13 branches

                                                                  Z5018 and Z5016 are by far the largest branches of V13

             S3003

                                                                  PGP89

                           L540                                            IDs:  FTDNA;  Yfull;  Yseq

                                        A6295-, Y7026-

                                                                  Hoff:  374375;  --;  3203

                                                                  Kovalev:  268215 Big Y; YF04818

                                        A6295

                                                     A9035-

                                                                  Nowak:  225596 Big Y; YF03833

                                                     A9035

                                                                  Gwozdz:  N16800 Big Y; YF02909;  1433

                                                                  Kargul:  199446; --; 4230

                                        Y7026

                                                     Z29042-, A783-

                                                                  Stavbom:  B3807 Big Y;  YF05186;  2100

                                                                  Glasser:  171456 Big Y;  YF04393

                                                                  Appell:  350864;  --;  3187

                                                                  Blind:  B2670;  --; 2891

                                                     Z29042

                                                                  Z39377-

                                                                                Gebert:  166692 Big Y;  YF01811

                                                                  Z39377

                                                                                Roider:  275510 Big Y;  YF04216

                                                                                Hartsfield:  140927 Big Y;  YF04834;  2397

                                                     A783

                                                                  Hochreutter:  N45041 Big Y;  YF02161

                                                                  Svercl:  155155 Big Y;  YF02913

                                                                  Burlik:  175213;  --;  2028

 

Kline (158091;  --;  2360)  L540+;  Y7026, Z29042, and A783 in process

Burlik (175213);  Big Y ordered

 

V13

             Rewrite 31 Oct 2015.

             For a detailed V13 tree, see:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D9WaPOZn_0l5GKtqXR0PbbxEir2o1t0e2HO-SJ2GboI/edit?pli=1#gid=2080530255

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE.html

             V13, in the E haplogroup, is a major branch of the human Y-DNA tree.  The L540 branch is a relatively small branch of V13.

             There are about 80 known SNP equivalents to V13.  V13 was the first to be discovered and the one used in most discussions about this haplogroup.  All but a very few V13 samples belong to L142 and CTS5856, so technically L540 is the main branch of the S3003 haplogroup, which is one of many branches of the CTS5856 haplogroup, which is the main branch of the L142 haplogroup, which is the main branch of V13.  For simplicity the L540 Tree above minimizes these details.  I usually just say in this web page that L540 is a branch of V13.  I say that V13 is the father of L540, when technically S3003 is the father and V13 is the great-great grandfather, and even that may change if additional side branches are discovered with very few samples.  I’m ignoring the known branches that have few samples, for simplicity.

             L542 is one of those 80 equivalents.  V13 is sometimes called L542.  L542 was found in my WTY.

 

PGP89

             New Topic 10 Feb 2015.

             PGP89 is a sample from the Personal Genome Project (search Google for details).  PGP89 is S3003+ but L540-, so this sample represents an older node in the branch leading to L540.  So far there are no such S3003+ L540- results in the E-M35 Project.

             This is from Steve Fix, who includes PGP data in his tree.

 

Z29042

             New Topic 14 Jan 2015.  Edit 27 Dec 2015.

             This SNP was discovered by Steve Fix on 10 Jan 2015, from the Big Y data of Roider, compared to Gebert.  These two samples have this SNP, but Hochreiter does not, so Z29042 defined a new Haplogroup, the first branch to be found for L540.  Steve assigned the Z series code number.  Actually, there are 6 new SNP locations common to Roider and Gebert, but only Z29042 was assigned a code;  some of those others may be needed in the future.

             I’m a bit surprised.  I expected Roider to fall into a branch with Hochreiter, because they are closest in STRs.  Also, I have been predicting an older node for Gebert, based on his DYS389 value, and his STR values that differ from other L540 samples, more than L540 samples differ from each other.  STR predictions are statistical, because STRs mutate relatively rapidly.  So this is a surprise, but such surprises are expected from time to time when making predictions based on STRs.

 

A783

             Update 10 Feb 2015.

             This SNPs was noticed by Steve Fix and me in Hochreiter’s Big Y data, our first L540 Big Y.  Actually, there were 10 new SNPs;  I tested myself for them but came out negative.  Yseq assigned A series code numbers to them.  None of the 10 showed up in the Big Y data for Roider or Gebert.  In Feb 2015 I noticed this one in the Big Y data for Svercl, so it defined a new haplogroup branch for L540, with Hochreiter and Svercl, not me, not Roider, not Gebert.

 

Y7026

             New Topic 8 Feb 2015.

             This SNP is present in the Big Y Data for all 4 samples from Z29042 and A783.  But Y7026 is not present in my Big Y, Feb 2015.  So Y7026 defined a haplogroup composed of both Z29042 and A783.

 

A6295

             New Topic 22 Jul 2015.

             This SNP has just been defined 22 Jul 2015.  It is present in Nowak’s recent Big Y, and is also present in my Big Y from earlier this year.  So A6295 defines a new haplogroup, with only the two of us so far.

 

A9035

             New Topic 21 Jan 2016.

             This SNP has just been defined 21 Jan 2016.  It is negative in one A6295 sample (Nowak) and positive in the other two (Gwozdz and Kargul), so it represents a haplogroup - a small twig in the Y-DNA tree.  Kargul does not have Big Y data;  Kargul’s FTDNA sample is A6295+;  Kargul’s Yseq sample is A9035+.  I (Gwozdz) ordered SNP tests at Yseq for 4 of my “private” SNPs, A9032, A9033, A9035, and A9036;  Kagul is negative for those other 3, implying that our MRCA node for A9035 is roughly 3/4 as old as our node with Nowak for A6295, although this is a very rough estimate with only 4 SNPs tested.  At the Yfull SNP browser, using the locations for those 4 SNPs from my (Gwozdz) Big Y data, I verified my positive standing for all 4 of these SNPs;  Nowak and all other V13 samples in the V13 Project at Yfull are negative for all 4.

 

Z39377

             New Topic 22 Nov 2015.

             This SNP has just been defined 22 Nov 2015.  It is present in Hartsfield’s recent Big Y, and is also present in Roider’s Big Y from earlier this year.  So Z39377 defines a new haplogroup, with only those two samples so far.

 

S3003

             Update Feb 2015:

             This SNP is in the L540 branch, but older.  PGP89 is a sample from the Personal Genome Project (search Google for details).  PGP89 is S3003+ but L540-, so this sample represents an older node in the branch leading to L540.  So far there are no such S3003+ L540- results in the E-M35 Project.  Technically, S3003 defines a haplogroup with branches PGP89 and also L540, but for simplicity I just say in this web page that L540 is a branch of V13.

 

Determining Your L540 Twig;  Dividing L540;  Discovering New SNPs

 

             Rewrite 31 Oct 2015.  Edit 3 Nov 2015.

             I recommend Big Y, next paragraph, if cost is not an issue for you, and if you are enthusiastic about discovering new haplogroups.  Otherwise, consider the less expensive tests per the following paragraphs, to determine your current haplogroup.

             Big Y:  Discovering new SNP haplogroups is part of my genetic genealogy hobby.  I have been recently recruiting L540 members to purchase Big Y in order to discover new SNPs, which provide new haplogroups - terminal  twigs on the Y tree, to further subdivide L540.  It’s not cheap.  $575 for Big Y.  Anyone interested in joining this L540 project can order Big Y;  please contact me so I can keep track of the status.  With Big Y, there is no need for individual SNP testing.  In fact, with Big Y, many men immediately discover their own new twig.  If you don’t discover a new twig with Big Y immediately, that is because two samples with the same SNP are required to officially define a new haplogroup.  It is almost certain that a future Big Y test will match one of the new SNPs in your Big Y data, thereby defining a new twig for just the two of you.

             If cost of Big Y is an issue, you can wait.  Save your money.  The price will come down with time.  That means others get the thrill of discovering the series of twigs in your branch of the Y tree, but you get to purchase the corresponding SNPs at the low price for individual SNP tests.

             I encourage testing at FTDNA, and joining the E-M35 Project, because I like the convenience of finding all the data in one place.  There are other companies.  Yseq offers individual SNPs at lower price with faster results.  Currently, individual SNPs cost $39 at FTDNA vs $17.50 at Yseq.  Click on SNP ordering for detailed instructions.

             If you have already come out L540+ with an SNP test, you can work your way through the L540 tree one SNP test at a time.  For example, starting with the Y7026 test, if you come out Y7026-, then test A6295;  if you come out Y7026+, continue with Z29042 and if negative then A783.  Then you wait for another new twig to show up in the tree.

             If you are predicted L540 based on STRs - red in the Neighborhood Table below, you might test for L540 first, then continue with the branches when confirmed L540+.  If your prediction is very high confidence, boldface in the table, you can skip the L540 test, but come back and test L540 and/or S3003 if you test negative for the two branches.

             If you are in that table with a low confidence blue prediction number, and you have not been tested for L540, consider one of the SNP package deals.  SNP packages are offered because your DNA testing companies (like FTDNA) provide you with high confidence haplogroup predictions for your main Y-DNA branch.  Even if you are not in my table, if your sample is predicted by FTDNA to be in one of the main branches upstream from L540, consider an SNP package deal:

             FTDNA has an “E-V68 SNP Pack, with 114 SNPs downstream of V68, at $119 to determine which is yours.  V68 is the “father” of V13, which is the father of L540.  At your FTDNA home page, click on “Haplotree & SNPs”, which jumps to your predicted location in the tree.  A banner ad for this pack should be in the tree above your position.  This pack has SNPs for all the known branches of L540, although L540 is not recognized yet in FTDNA’s tree, and although Y7026 and A6295 are still not available individually at FTDNA.

             If you are sure you are V13, Yseq has a “V13 Panel” that has a better selection of V13 branches including all the known branches of L540.  It costs $88, plus $5 for a cheek swab kit if you have not already tested at Yseq.  Link with a description:  http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=2486.  That description has a nice V13 tree.  Please let me know if you are L540 and order this panel, so I can keep track of results.

             For more specific discussion, click on  L540, A783, Z29042, Y7026, A6295, SNP ordering, and Big Y.

             How about STRs?  In the past, I encouraged upgrading to 111 Markers, the largest set available at FTDNA.  Now that there are plenty of SNPs available with low cost tests, SNPs are better than STRs for finding your closest Y matches.  However, there are plenty of samples without the latest SNP tests, so if you are anxious to find out which of these best match your Y, 111 STR markers are much better than the smaller standard sets.

 

Cluster C

             Rewrite 31 Oct 2015.

             Friedman proposed cluster C in 2008, based on STR correlations, when the data was less than what is available today.  Cluster C now seems equivalent to L540.  The cluster C data is still available at the haplozone site but may not be up to date.

 

C Type

             Rewrite 31 Oct 2015.

             I defined C type in Jan 2010 as my version of Cluster C.

             I use C type to predict L540 samples based on STRs, for samples that do not have the L540 SNP test.

             I use the word type for an STR cluster with statistical validity as established by my Mountain Method.  “Type” is my own term.  I chose the word “type” because it is not generally used in genetic genealogy and I wish to distinguish my types from haplogroups and from other clusters.  By “type” I mean the cluster data, the hypothetical clade, the modal haplotype, and the set of all possible haplotypes, at any number of markers.  Accordingly, by “C type” I mean any or all of these 4 things.  I sometimes use just “C” as short for “C type”.  I also have a previous C type identified in R1a;  unrelated;  please don’t get confused.  I published my methods in the Fall 2009 issue of JoGG.

             My analysis files define C type.  Sorry, it can be a bit confusing because I have multiple STR definitions for C type, for various marker sets.  The number of markers in my definitions change slightly when new samples show up with unusual STR values.  I hope the meanings are clear from the context of my discussions in this web document.  See the discussion below the Neighborhood Table for links to my definitions, with links to my Excel analysis files.

             Click on seems equivalent for an explanation that STR types (such as C type) cannot be exactly equal to equivalent SNP haplogroups (such as L540), due to STR outliers.

 

V13C

             Rewrite 31 Oct 2015,

             I coined the name V13C in 2010 to represent C type, cluster C, the hypothetical haplogroup, and the samples (men) in the hypothetical haplogroup.

             I also used V13C to mean samples that match C type from the database of samples at E-M35 or at Haplozone, or at other databases.

             This web document used to be named V13C.html.

             Now that C type seems equivalent to L540 I editing away most of my mentions of the name “V13C”, but I’ll continue to use “C type” for the hypothetical clade based on STRs.

 

L Type

             Edit 27 Dec 2015.

             I proposed L type on this web page in mid 2011, based on only 2 samples, which means not very high statistical confidence.  L type (also called L540 type) was a type that included C type plus those 2 samples, which did not fit C type at that time.

             I no longer consider the distinction between C type and L type useful.  One of those two samples (Gebert) tested positive for the Z29042 branch, which means it is just a statistical STR outlier. The other (Fredeen) has not been SNP tested for L540 branches, so I don’t know if that one is also an outlier, or if it truly belongs to a much older node in the L540 tree.

             I now use the 2013 L type definition for C type;  see C45 for more discussion.

             I edited this web page to remove most mentions of L type.

 

111 Markers

             Rewrite 5 Dec 2015.

             FTDNA provides STR markers in various sets.  The largest, a set of 111, was introduced in 2011.  Upgrades can be purchased for samples with fewer markers.  Obviously, matches and predictions are more accurate using more markers.  Until 2014, I had been recommending the 111 set to L540 members, hoping to discover STR correlations good enough to divide the L540 haplogroup into clusters with high confidence.  Today, SNPs are more important than STRs.  This is because the cost of discovering new SNPs has come down a lot.  SNPs define haplogroup divisions;  STRs only provide statistical predictions for haplogroups.

             Still, the set of 111 markers is the most accurate way to find out which samples in the large on-line STR databases are your best matches, and statistically most likely to form a recent branch (I would call it a twig) in the tree of your male line ancestry, and a prediction of their order (older vs younger nodes).  As an example of the value of 111 STRs, I discovered DYS445=11 as an unusual mutation in my own Y, shared by my 3rd cousin, and also shared by Kargul, adding evidence that we form a twig in the L540 tree, perhaps restricted to Poland, perhaps only a few centuries old.  DYS445 is not available at less than 111 markers in FTDNA standard sets.  The rest of L540 samples have the value DYS445=10.  The value 11 does show up rarely elsewhere in V13, as an independent mutation, so although DYS445 is very slowly mutating it is not as slow as a typical SNP, so not as statistically reliable as an SNP.

             New clusters can still be discovered with STRs, as predictions for new haplogroups, which still need confirmation by discovery of a corresponding SNP.  However, STR analysis is yielding diminishing returns for the effort.  SNP discovery is now accelerating instead.

             Summary:  111 STR markers are valuable if you are very interested in genetic genealogy, and if cost is not a big issue for you.  If cost is an issue, and if you are merely curious about your Y-DNA, as a first test I recommend the 37 marker STR set (topic after next).

             For my 111 marker analysis of L540, see my discussion of C75(111) below the Neighborhood table.

 

67 Markers

             Rewrite 5 Dec 2015.

             FTDNA provides a 67 marker standard set of STR markers.  I have been using this 67 set for analysis for more than 8 years.  Although the 111 set is more accurate, this 67 set is valuable for analysis because there are a lot more samples on-line at 67, and all samples with 111 are included.

             For my 67 marker analysis of L540, see my discussion of C54(67) below the Neighborhood table.

 

37 Markers

             Rewrite 5 Dec 2015.

             FTDNA no longer offers the 25 and 12 STR marker standard sets.  The 37 marker set is sufficient as a first test is you are curious to see in which Y-DNA main branch haplogroup you belong.  With 37 markers, FTDNA will automatically place you in one of the main large haplogroup branches of the Y-DNA tree.  For the smaller branches of the tree, there are SNP tests.  For L540 candidates, I have a separate discussion topic about this:  Dividing L540.

             Most of the more rapidly mutating STRs are in the 37 marker set, so the 37 marker set is good to search for your best matches to other men with a male line common ancestor in the last millennium or so.  FTDNA provides you with matches to other men with similar STR haplotypes.  All samples with 67 or 111 are included because they have these 37 plus more.

             For my 37 marker analysis of L540, see my discussion of C30(37) below the Neighborhood table.

 

25 Markers

             Rewrite 5 Dec 2015.

             FTDNA provides the older STR sets, using 12 and 25, as special orders by project administrators, but for the price difference the 37 set makes more sense.

             For my 25 marker analysis of L540, see my discussion of C12(25) below the Neighborhood table.

 

12 Markers

             Rewrite 5 Dec 2015.

             The standard 12 STR markers are among the slower mutating STRs, so this set can be used for prediction of the oldest  haplogroups, including V13.  There are still lots of data on-line with only 12 markers.  This 12 set is not reliable for L540.  With the modal haplotype, C12, one confirmed L540+ sample (Sabieka) is at step 5 (last column in the Neighborhood Table) and three samples are at step 4, so in the future a sample may show up even at step 6.  I have found no confirmed L540- samples yet at steps 0 or 1, but there are some that I predict L540-, so I used blue, for low confidence, at the bottom of the Neighborhood table for samples at steps 0 and 1.  At step 2 my confidence for each sample is only about 10%, based on more than 50 samples, and confidence decreases above step 2.  See also http://www.gwozdz.org/C12.xls for more details.

             Actually, the known L540+ samples are just as valuable as C12, because any samples that match an L540+ sample using all 12 markers are candidates for L540 SNP testing.  As an extreme example, Sabieka (kit 226416) has no matches in the E-M35 database at the first 12 markers step 0, no matches at step 1, and only 6 samples at step 2.  His haplotype is rare.  So any future samples with a 12 marker haplotype that differs from Sabieka by less than step 2 is an L540 candidate, albeit with low confidence.

             Exceptions:  The V13 modal haplotype differs from L540 by step 4 using the 12 markers.  Many branches of V13 have the same modal haplotype at 12 markers, for example L241 and L143.  It is no surprise that the V13 modal haplotype has 125 samples in the E-M35 database at 12 markers.  Obviously, the confidence for predicting any one of these to be L540+ is extremely low, and in fact there are none yet.   The V13 vs L540 modals differ at 3 markers (one is step 2).  So there are 3 haplotypes that differ by step 1 from V13, toward L540, meaning they are step 3 from L540, also with many samples in the database, and also extremely low confidence.  There are 3 other haplotypes that differ by step 1 from L540, toward V13;  these have only 8 samples at 12 markers (Nov 2015), with one confirmed L540+ and two others predicted L540 based on more markers, but confidence for these 3 haplotypes is of course lower than the other step 1 haplotypes (using 12 markers) that differ in haplospace directions away from V13.

 

Best STR Markers

             Update 17 Dec 2014:

             STR markers that mutate relatively slowly are statistical indicators for clades in which they are recently mutated, but they are not perfect because of subsequent independent mutations.  When a clade has a few such good STR markers those provide a signature set of STR markers.  A signature is statistically expected to be a more probable indicator of a clade than just one marker.  Indeed cluster C is characterized by the Friedman Signature.  My definitions of C type and L540 use other helpful markers, not just the signature.

             My analysis files automatically rank markers, as useful for a definition, using a method that I published.  You can view my ranking in those xls files linked below the Neighborhood Table.  See row 11 of the Calculator sheet, and row 17 of the TypeRank sheet.  The exact ranking of markers varies slightly from month to month due to the random nature of mutation values in new samples, and due to the somewhat arbitrary cutoff that I use to restrict the database to the neighborhood (using too many samples provides a ranking of the father clade instead of the clade of interest).  For example a sample that ranks 6th one month might come out 4th or 5th or 7th or 8th the next month.

             An SNP that defines a haplogroup is very unlikely to have happened exactly at the time of the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of a haplogroup.  Most likely the SNP is somewhat older, because usually there are many generations between nodes.  By definition an SNP cannot be younger than the TMRCA.  Similarly, we can consider a hypothetical clade defined by a particular STR mutation, which is likely somewhat older than the TMRCA of that clade.  However, for clusters defined by signatures, and for types defined by definitions, one rare STR mutation that contributes to the signature might have happened shortly before or after the TMRCA of that cluster or type.

             Very slow mutators should make the best markers.  However the slowest are rarely mutated, so those with intermediate mutation rate show up more often as signature markers.  My Type.xls master file has the Chandler STR mutations rates, in the ASD sheet, row 5.  The ASD sheet is not usually included in my analysis files.

             Usually it is silly to speculate about clusters defined by a single STR value.  In this case, however, we have a hypothetical haplogroup, C type, which seems quite young, with relatively little STR variation, so some speculation is in order:

 

DYS389II = 32  (389II minus 389I = 19);  Best Marker for Cluster C

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             DYS389II=32 is best of the original Friedman markers for cluster C.  It remains a good marker for C type and L540.

             [Technical detail:  DYS389 is a compound marker, where 389I is the first STR chain and (389II minus 389I) is the second STR chain.  For cluster C the first chain is 389-1 = 389I = 13.  The second chain is 389-2 = 19.  389II = 13 + 19 = 32.  The marker of interest here is really 389-2 = 19 (389II minus 389I = 19).  However, 389I mutates more slowly and has the value 13 for all but one C sample so far and for almost all samples in the L540 neighborhood.  At Ysearch or Haplozone, both 389 markers need to be used together;  if one is omitted both are ignored.  My analysis files allow the 389-2 chain to be used alone in analysis, using 389-I only to calculate the difference.  However, I use both 389 values (or neither in some cases) in my published definitions to be compatible with other web sites.  In this discussion topic, by “32” I really mean 19 for the delta value.]

             All STR marker sets by all DNA companies include the 389 pair (I have not noticed any exceptions).

             Only two L540+ samples, Fredeen and Gebert, have the ancestral value 30.  Butman, the closest STR match with L540-, also has 30.  Only a few samples in the branches of L540 have the value 31, which is not common in the neighborhood.  On this basis, it seems likely that the mutations to from 30 to 31 to 32 happened before the TMRCA for L540, and later mutations back from 32 to 31 and 30 happened in some but not most L540 male lines.  (We cannot rule out a rare double size mutation incident, from 30 to 32, or a double mutation back to 30.)

             The 32 value is rare throughout V13 but shows up in E-M35 branches outside V13.

             DYS389II (actually the delta value 389-2) ranks 43rd in Chandler mutation rates.  Near the middle.  So exceptions are expected, due to recent mutations.

 

DYS594 = 12;  Best Marker for L540 at 67 Markers

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             In my analysis, DYS594=12 is the best marker for L540 (and C type) using the 67 marker set.  594 is not in the 37 marker set.

             All L540+ samples with 67 or more markers, including 2 that are not C type, all have the 594=12 value.  Butman, the closest STR match not predicted L540, indeed tested L540-, and has the ancestral 11.

             All C type samples (predicted L540), even those not tested yet for L540, have the 12 value.

             A few samples in the STR neighborhood have 594=12 but are L540-.  These are not a random sample;  I recruited two of them for the L540 test to find out if all 594=12 in the neighborhood are L540;  no, not all.

             The 594=12 value is more common in the L540 neighborhood than in the rest of the V13 data.  So I was wondering if 594=12 is an old mutation in the S3003 branch.  So I tested one of those two L540- samples with 594=12;  it came out S3003-, so it is clearly an independent mutation.  Also, considering the L241 haplogroup, some of those samples are in the neighborhood, but they have 594=11 except one sample that has the value 12, so that is also independent.

             DYS594 ranks 12th from the slowest in the 67 Chandler mutation rates.  Quite slow, so independent recent mutations should be rare.

 

DYS636 = 12;  DYS504 = 14;  DYS561 = 17

Excellent Signature Markers for L540;  Available Only in the 111 Set

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             These three are not in the FTDNA 67 STR maker set, but are available in the extended 111 STR marker set.  They are each about as good as DYS594=12, previous topic.  There are other markers almost as good in the 111 set.  That’s why C75(111), my 111 marker definition for C type, works very well.

             Using C75(111) to analyze these 4 best markers (including 594, previous topic):

             12 samples C type at 111 markers are all confirmed L540+.  (My cousin and I - both Gwozdz - do not show L540+ at the E-M35 SNP web page because my WTY discovery of L540 does not show at that page.)

             10 samples are statistically independent because I recruited my cousin and Kargul.

             That 111 marker analysis file includes the 101 nearest STR neighbors at 111.  113 samples total.

             DYS594 = 12:  All 10 L540 samples have 594=12.  Only one other sample has the 12 value, not a near neighbor.  One has 10;  all the rest have 11.  See the previous topic for discussion of 67 marker DYS594 neighbors.

             DYS636 = 12:  All 12 have 636=12.  Only one other sample has the 12 value, not a near neighbor.  All the rest have 11.

, and all 42 neighbors have 636=11.

             DYS504 = 14:  9 of the 12 have 504=14, but two of those are not really exceptions, because they have 504=15, representing an additional mutation.  Glasser is the only exception with 13.  14 other samples have the 14 value, not near neighbors.  All the rest have 13.

             DYS561 = 17:  11 of the 12 have 561=17;  one has 16.  4 other samples have the 14 value, not near neighbors.  The rest are 16 except for several 15.

             Kargul is that sole exception, with 561=16.  As discussed in the Kargul topic below, Kargul is obviously a male line relative of mine from the past few centuries, so this exception seems to be an independent mutation back to the ancestral value.

             Summary:  10 of the 12 L540+ samples at 111 markers match on all 4 of these signature markers.

             Butman is the closest STR neighbor at 111 (C type at 67 and 37).  Butman is confirmed L540-.  Butman has the ancestral values for all 4 of these.

 

Signature C4

             Rewrite 29 Dec 2015.

             An excellent signature using the 67 standard marker set, for C type is (389I, 389II, 594, 444) = (13, 32, 12, 13).  But it’s not perfect.  12 of the 19 L540+ samples with 67 markers have this signature at step 0, 5 samples are at step 1, Gebert and Fredeen are outliers at steps 2 and 3.  Butman is the only L540- sample at step 0.  This is using all on-line data that I rounded up in Nov 2015.

             There are better markers than 389I.  I included that one because it enables C4 in on-line searches, which disregard 389II if used alone.

 

Friedman Signature

             Rewrite 29 Dec 2015.

             The signature is (390, 389-2, 447) = (25, 32, 25).

             Friedman had been calling this the “characteristic marker values” for cluster C at the Haplozone site before I started working on this, back in 2008, when there were only 9 samples available in cluster C, including mine.

 

             This original Friedman signature by works surprisingly well by itself for samples with only 25 of the standard markers, but not with high confidence.  For more details, see the discussion about C3(25) below the Neighborhood Table.

             In early 2011 Friedman added 594=12 to the “characteristic marker values”, for 67 marker samples.  See also the discussion below the Neighborhood Table.

             DYS389 is a compound marker, discussed above.

             Friedman used a more complicated analysis than just this simple signature in her C type assignments.  I do not know her method exactly, but most definitions (not all) that I tried, selecting well ranked markers, extracted the same samples that she did.

 

L540 Neighborhood

             Update 13 Dec 2015.  Edit 27 Dec 2015.

             L540 is small enough that I can insert a complete table here, including neighbors just beyond in STR values.  These are the samples known to me that might be L540 members, and near neighbors, based on STR prediction.

             Those numbers are STR step, which is mutation count from that column’s Modal Haplotype, as explained in the notes below the table.

             + vs --- means confirmed positive L540+ vs negative L540-, violet vs green. Confirmed by an SNP test, or a relative or very close STR match to a confirmed L540+ sample.

             L241 means positive for another haplogroup, implying negative for L540.

             There are many more negative L540 results from outside this neighborhood (higher step).

             Red step numbers are C type, which is almost equivalent to L540, so these are predicted L540 with more than 70% confidence.

             Red boldface step numbers are predicted L540 with more than 90% confidence.

             Blue step numbers are borderline, might be L540, less than 70% confidence.

             Pink step numbers fit C type, but a better modal haplotype is available;  these pink numbers provide calibration of these lesser modals, for use with other samples.

             For my recommended DNA tests for samples in this table see the topic Determining Your L540 Twig.

             Data sources:  e = E-M35 project, h = Haplozone,  y = Ysearch

             Edit 17 Dec 2015:  A few ancestor names corrected;  some had been showing the name of the administrator for the sample.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modal>

C75

(111)

C111

(111)

C54

(67)

C67

(67)

C4

(67)

C30

(37)

C37

(37)

C12

(25)

C25

(25)

C3

(25)

C12

(12)

 

 

 

 

 

L540

Terminal

 

Cutoff >

8

17

8

13

2

5

9

2

3

2

1

Kit

Ysearch

L540

Ancestor

Origin

Tree

Test

Data

Markers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N45041

UQR4B

+

Hochreutter

Germany

A783

Big Y

ehy

111

1

8

1

5

0

0

6

0

3

0

1

51282

A9FVE

+

Weiand 

Germany

 

FTDNA

eh

111

2

14

5

11

0

5

8

1

4

0

1

N16800

KFKGM

+

Gwozdz

Poland

A6295

Big Y

ehy

111

2

10

4

8

0

3

6

1

4

1

2

171456

79QF7

+

Glasser

Germany

Y7026*

Big Y

ehy

111

2

8

0

2

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

175213

5XP46

+

Burlik

Germany

A783

Yseq

ey

111

2

11

2

6

0

3

4

1

2

0

0

155155

 

+

Svercl

Czech

A783

Big Y

eh

111

2

14

1

7

0

1

4

0

2

0

2

140927

9JM9U

+

Hartsfield

Prussia

Z39377

Big Y

ehy

111

2

10

4

5

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

N81304

 

+

Gwozdz

Poland

A6295

Relative

eh

111

3

12

5

10

0

4

8

1

5

1

3

225596

6S4J6

+

Nowak

Poland

A6295

Big Y

ehy

111

5

11

3

8

1

2

4

0

0

0

0

199446

TK98K

+

Kargul

Poland

A6295

Yseq

ehy

111

6

11

4

7

1

3

5

1

4

1

2

166692

8FTXT

+

Gebert

Germany

Z29042*

Big Y

ehy

111

7

16

6

9

2

3

5

2

4

2

3

162917

 

+

Fredeen

Sweden

 

FTDNA

eh

111

7

22

7

17

3

6

12

3

6

2

4

N91348

 

---

Butman

England

 

FTDNA

e

111

15

21

6

12

4

2

7

2

2

2

2

417237

 

Z17264

Simutkin

Russia

 

Big Y

e

111

17

30

12

20

3

9

17

4

11

3

5

61348

 

 

Ramsey

England

 

 

e

111

17

37

13

24

3

11

20

4

10

2

4

5960

V93B3

Z17264

Bartlett

England

 

Big Y

ehy

111

18

28

9

17

3

5

12

3

6

2

4

98212

 

L241

Baber

England

 

FTDNA

e

111

18

34

13

23

4

11

16

5

9

4

5

295031

 

 

Takhir

Russia

 

 

e

111

18

36

13

26

4

9

15

5

8

5

5

N39989

5N5MF

---

Hohnloser

Germany

 

FTDNA

ehy

111

18

29

13

19

4

7

10

2

3

2

3

 

 

 

5 samples

 

 

 

e

111

19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 more

 

 

 

e

111

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z17264 Modal

 

 

 

e

111

13

24

9

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V13 Modal

 

 

 

e

111

17

22

12

17

6

8

12

4

7

4

4

 

 

 

L241 Modal

 

 

 

e

111

23

34

16

25

5

13

17

4

8

4

5

 

 

 

L143 Modal

 

 

 

e

111

25

35

14

21

5

11

15

4

7

4

4

320415

 

+

Micek

Russia

 

FTDNA

e

67

 

 

1

3

0

2

3

0

2

0

1

200924

 

+

Ratuszni

Hungary

 

FTDNA

e

67

 

 

1

3

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

229581

 

 

Zinin

Unknown

 

 

eh

67

 

 

1

5

1

2

4

1

2

1

2

262750

 

+

Svercel

Slovakia

A783

FTDNA

eh

67

 

 

2

7

0

1

3

0

1

0

1

243901

FSQXZ

 

Stubblefield

Unknown

 

 

ehy

67

 

 

2

11

0

5

10

1

6

0

2

E10751

 

 

Schulz

Germany

 

 

1

67

 

 

3

7

2

5

7

2

5

2

4

 

PFKX4

 

Georgi

Germany

 

 

y

67

 

 

3

13

 

 

11

1

5

 

 

6104

4HJ3D 

 

Boyd

Unknown

 

 

ehy

67

 

 

4

9

0

3

8

0

1

0

0

207878

 

 

Frind

Germany

 

 

eh

67

 

 

4

9

0

3

6

1

4

0

2

B3807

 

+

Stavbom

Sweden

Y7026*

Yseq

eh

67

 

 

5

12

0

4

9

1

5

0

4

B2670

X2JH9

+

Blind 

Germany

Y7026*

Yseq

ehy

67

 

 

5

10

1

4

8

2

5

2

2

174240

 

 

 

Unknown

 

 

1

67

 

 

6

3

1

 

2

1

1

1

1

 

WHFQB

 

Froetscher

Germany

 

 

y

67

 

 

6

14

1

4

12

1

4

1

2

70482

6HMRD

+

Simonsson 

Sweden

 

FTDNA

ehy

67

 

 

7

11

1

4

7

1

2

1

1

226416

 

+

Sabieka

Belarus

 

FTDNA

eh

67

 

 

7

12

1

6

11

3

7

2

5

290459

 

 

Peck

Unknown

 

 

ehy

67

 

 

7

16

2

6

11

3

6

1

1

 

59BSP

 

Unknown

Unknown

 

 

y

67

 

 

7

16

 

 

11

3

6

 

 

54711

 

 

Eilhauer

Germany

 

FTDNA

G

67

 

 

7

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44601

 

 

Harcus

Scotland

 

FTDNA

eh

67

 

 

9

19

 

7

14

5

9

2

4

70079

 

 

Skapyak

Austria

 

 

ey

67

 

 

10

16

 

6

11

4

8

3

4

75569

 

 

McDonald

Unknown

 

 

ey

67

 

 

10

22

 

9

17

6

9

3

3

152742

 

 

Acevedo

Unknown

 

 

e

67

 

 

10

23

 

7

18

4

9

3

5

E7459

 

 

Vilanueva

Philippines

 

 

ey

67

 

 

10

18

 

9

15

5

9

4

6

 

 

 

5 more

 

 

FTDNA

eh

67

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 more

 

 

 

y

67

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

275510

3K5CF

+

Roider

Germany

Z39377

Big Y

ey

37

 

 

 

 

 

0

8

0

4

0

1

N109412

BYHHR

 

Howe

Unknown

 

 

ehy

37

 

 

 

 

 

1

4

0

2

0

0

350864

 

+

Appell

Germany

Y7026*

FTDNA

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

1

3

1

2

1

2

317302

9P4Z5

 

Sager

Germany

 

 

ey

37

 

 

 

 

 

1

4

1

1

1

1

158091

QHU8Y

+

Kline 

Germany

 

FTDNA

ehy

37

 

 

 

 

 

2

4

1

2

1

2

268215

 

+

Kovalev

Russia

L540*

Big Y

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

2

8

0

3

0

2

284871

 

 

Knotz

Austria

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

2

4

1

2

1

0

434037

 

 

Giegold

Germany

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

3

5

1

1

1

1

426965

EJB8R

 

Symns

Germany

 

 

ey

37

 

 

 

 

 

4

7

2

3

1

2

141863

W5JHS

 

Pohl

Germany

 

 

ehy

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

7

1

3

1

3

374375

 

+

Hoff 

Norway

L540*

Yseq

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

9

2

5

2

4

42790

 

 

Brenneman

Switzerland

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

12

2

6

2

2

294225

XVN9H

 

Belinskiy

Russia

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

9

0

2

0

1

122332

 

 

Preece

England

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

6

12

2

7

2

4

65296

 

 

Garig

Germany

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

7

11

6

11

4

9

338942

 

 

Altmeier

Germany

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

7

11

3

6

3

3

 

 

 

~ 6 more

 

 

 

e

37

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q8JRJ

 

Spooner

USA

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

0

3

0

1

0

0

 

2N3UM

 

Oppitz

Germany

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

4

6

1

4

1

2

 

EDS4E

 

Haenicke

Germany

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

3

4

1

2

1

1

 

V6X4V

 

Fitze

Germany

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

2

6

0

1

0

0

 

3K4Y2

 

Lintner

Germany

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

2

7

0

4

0

1

 

4Q933

 

Kephart

USA

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

3

6

2

3

2

2

 

YN5M6

 

Bend

Unknown

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

3

5

1

3

 

 

 

9RCZR

 

Stenborg

Sweden

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

3

8

1

 

 

 

 

WME5S

 

Cervenka

Hungary

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

4

10

1

6

0

2

 

K48RR

 

Mowers

Canada

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

9

2

 

 

 

 

J266G

 

Wysocki

Poland

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

5

11

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

More

 

 

 

y

37

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

S10193

 

 

Engel

Germany

 

 

h

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

1

0

1

S10194

 

 

Kochtitizky

Hungary

 

 

h

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

3

0

1

A2983

 

 

Undisclosed

Austria

 

 

h

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

4

1

1

S10231

 

 

Karozewski

Austria

 

 

h

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

More

 

 

 

h

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

PNP4W

 

East

USA

 

 

y

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

4

 

 

 

 

 

Several more

 

 

 

ehy

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several more

 

 

 

ehy

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

285764

 

+

Stavbom

Sweden

Y7026*

relative

eh

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

N26163

R38X2

 

Fritsch

Czech

 

 

ehy

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

N39377

 

 

Obendorf

Germany

 

 

eh

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

N57225

XKCE3

 

Livingston

Germany

 

 

ehy

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

Ysearch

 

6 more

 

 

 

y

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

Many more

 

 

 

ehy

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Explanation of the modal haplotype columns in the table:

 

             C111 is the modal haplotype for L540 (and for C type) using the full 111 standard STR marker set.  With the cutoff at step 17, it fails to capture one L540+ sample, Fredeen.  C67 is the modal haplotype using the 67 standard STR set;  similarly for C37, C25, and C12.

 

             111 STR Marker data updated 5 Nov 2015.  Edit 4 Dec 2015.

             C75(111) is my modal haplotype definition for prediction of C type, using 75 of the 111 standard STR markers.  The cutoff is 8;  notice that there are no samples in the gap at steps 9 through 14.  All L540+ samples are captured by this definition, and no L540- samples are captured.  Because of that large step 7 gap, it seems improbable (although slightly possible) future L540 outliers might be missed by this definition, or future L540- samples might be captured.  My analysis file http://www.gwozdz.org/C111Type.xls is available if you are interested in the details.  For example, that file shows that any number of markers from 23 to 75 (columns DX to EA of the “Calculator” sheet) could be used for the definition and the gap with no samples would still be step 7;  I use 75 STR markers, the largest choice.

             Near Neighbors.  The table includes a few samples with 111 markers beyond the C75 cutoff, for comparison.  These help to calibrate the other modals with fewer markers.

             For more discussion, see the topic 111 Markers.

             My Type.xls master file has instruction sheets explaining how my xls analysis files work.

 

             67 STR Marker data updated 17 Nov 2015.

             C54(67) is my modal haplotype definition for prediction of C type, using 54 of the 67 set of standard STR markers.  The cutoff is 8.  Notice the minimum at the gap, no sample at step 8, and only two at step 9 (one of the 9’s has 111 markers and is not L540).  C54 captures one sample that is not L540, Butman at step 6, but that sample has 111 markers, does not fit the C75(111) definition, and has tested L540-, so Butman is an STR outlier from another haplogroup.  C54 captures all the known L540+ samples at less than step 8, but this is a bit misleading.  In the past, my C type definitions at 67 markers have occasionally failed to capture new L540+ outliers;  My definition method generally captures outliers, so my new definitions are slightly different when making use of new outlier data.  So it is likely outliers will show up in the future from C54 step 8 or 9 or 10, at which time I’ll tweak my definition again.  It is even slightly possible that a sample at C54 step 11 might someday come out L540+, but the probability for each individual sample at step 11 is surely less than 10%.  In other words, prediction of L540 using C type is uncertain near the cutoff value of step 8.  Accordingly, in the table above for predictions at 67 markers, I used blue color for steps 7 though 10, where step 7 is relatively more confident and step 10 is relatively less confident.  I used red below step 7 indicating higher confidence of prediction, and boldface below step 4 for very high confidence.

             67 STR marker summary:  C54 can be used to predict L540 quite well, with uncertainty near the cutoff.  111 markers work much better, because there are additional 3 excellent signature markers and a number of other helpful markers in the 111 set that are not available at 67.

             My analysis file http://www.gwozdz.org/C67Type.xls is available if you are interested in the details.  In that analysis file I show how several other C type definitions work almost as well as C54;  various definitions using from 4 to 67 markers differ only by a few samples near the cutoff.  That analysis file has a sheet “Haplotypes and Masks” with C54(67) and also with my previous definitions.  It also has sheets with C type data from Ysearch and from Haplozone.  C54 is also available at Ysearch with the ID QAZ7P.

             For more discussion, see the topic 67 Markers.

             C4(67) is the signature used by Haplozone cluster C since before L540 was discovered:  (390, Δ389, 447, 594) = (25, 19, 25, 12).

 

             37 STR Marker data updated 28 Nov 2015.

             C30(37) is my modal haplotype best fit for predicting L540 samples using 30 of the 37 set of standard STR markers.  The cutoff is step 5.  There is no gap, so the cluster does not form a type;  prediction is not very specific using only 37 markers.  From the calibration (C30 step values for samples with 111 and 67 markers), it seems C30 predicts C type with relatively high confidence for steps less than 3, so I colored those red in the table.  I used blue to for steps 3 through 8 to indicate progressively lower confidence for higher step values.  The probability

is low for each sample at steps higher than 5, but there surely will be a few outliers showing up with C30 step greater than 5 in the future;  indeed Fredeen and Sabieka are L540+ and they have step 6,

             My analysis file http://www.gwozdz.org/C37.xls is available if you are interested in the details.

             I have another file, http://www.gwozdz.org/C37Matrix.xls, with a matrix of step values, showing step between samples at 37 markers.  The samples with nearest neighbors tested L540+ are more likely to also be L540.  This file also shows that most samples at steps 5 through 8 are probably not L540.

             For more discussion, see the topic 37 Markers.

 

             25 STR Marker data updated 1 Dec 2015.

             C12(25) is my modal haplotype best fit for predicting L540 samples using 12 of the 25 set of standard STR markers.  The cutoff is step 2.  There is no gap, so the cluster does not form a type;  prediction is not very specific using only 25 markers.  From the calibration (C12 step values for samples with 111, 67, and 37 markers), it seems C12 predicts C type with some confidence for steps 0 through 3, so I colored those blue in the table.  I did not use red for step zero, because there are samples confirmed L540- at step 0 for C13 (not in the table).  There may well be a few outliers showing up with C12 step greater than 3 in the future

             My analysis file http://www.gwozdz.org/C25.xls is available if you are interested in the details.  I derived C12(25) in 2014;  that recent C25.xls analysis file has columns with several tentative definitions using 25 markers, all not quite as good as C12, so I’m sticking with C12 for now.  C12 is available in the sheet “Haplotypes & Masks” in that file.

             C3(25) is the original Friedman signature, proposed years ago.  For this table I used the difference for DYS389: (390, Δ389, 447) = (25, 19, 25).  The table shows that it still works remarkably well.  However, there is selection bias, because some samples at C3 step 1 were not included in the table because so far all these have 37 or more markers and do not fit C type using the corresponding definition in the table;  some of these belong to V13, the father haplogroup of L540.  At C3 step 0 there are only a few more samples in the database but these are from outside V13 so these are not listed in the table.  Note that Sabieka is L540+ at C3 step 2, and a few others at step 2 are predicted C type based on more markers.  On the other hand, the table has at C3 step 2 two samples L540- and a few more predicted well outside C type.  The table indicates 22 more samples with only 25 markers at C3 step 2;  no doubt a few of these might eventually test L540+, but the probability for each one individually seems to be low.

             For more discussion, see the topic 25 Markers.

 

             12 STR Marker data updated 4 Dec 2015.

             My analysis file http://www.gwozdz.org/C12.xls is available if you are interested.

             For more discussion, see the topic 12 Markers.

 

             Note 1:  Two samples, E10751 and 174240, are not in the databases that I check;  these two were brought to my attention by Paul Svercl (in the table), who noticed them in an E haplogroup tree by Marko Heinila, but that tree is no longer on-line.

             Note G:  Germany-YDNA Project;  also brought to my attention by Svercl

             I use the Ysearch method for calculating step, which gives a result slightly different than the Haplozone method.

             If you are a neighbor and wish to be added to this table, please let me know.

 

Gwozdz

             My sample is kit N16800.  N81304 is my 3rd cousin Gwozdz.

 

Kargul

             Edit 17 Dec 2015.

             Kit 199446, Aloysius Kargol is my closest STR match available on the web (other than my 3rd cousin).  In May 2010, his daughter noticed, on ancestry.com, that he and I are perfect matches at 12 STR markers.  I studied the LDS microfilms and located his 1820’s Kargul ancestor living in a village in Poland only 20 miles away from the village of my Gwozdz ancestor.  I paid for his FTDNA sample.  Kargul is in the table above.  His L540 test came out positive, placing him in that new haplogroup.  We are 5 steps apart at 67 STR markers;  9 at 111.

             For estimating the size of L540 or C type, my cousin and Kargul should not be included, because I recruited them, paying for their tests.  Family sets such as these distort size estimates, when comparing the number of samples per haplogroup or per STR type or cluster.

 

Butman

             New topic 13 May 2011.  Rewrite 22 Dec 2015.

             Butman’s L540 SNP test came out negative in 2011.  That means he is not a member of the L540 haplogroup.  Kit N91348.

             This sample is interesting because it is an STR outlier from another haplogroup, coming out closest to C type.  (C type is the STR equivalent of L540.)  Notice in the Neighborhood Table above, how this sample falls just below C type.  (Dec 2015 at step 15 using the C75(111) definition.)

             At 67 markers, this sample actually falls within C type;  check the numbers in that table, at the columns for the 67 and 37 marker modal haplotypes.  That’s because the 111 marker set has quite a few good signature markers for C type.  Before 2011, at this web page, I listed this sample as at the edge of C type, or predicted L540 with low confidence.  Using only the 37 marker set, Butman’s 5 closest neighbors are C type (Dec 2015).

             This sample recently came out negative for S3003, which is the “father” of L540.  The MRCA node for S3003 is older than the MRCA for L540.  This sample tested V13+ but has not yet been tested for all the recently discovered SNP branches of V13.  Using all 111 STR markers, Butman has no close neighbors;  his closest are Bartlett at step 21, Hohnloser at step 22, and Hochreiter (L540+) at step 23 along with another Bartlett sample and two other samples that are not in the Table above (Dec 2015).

             In the Y-DNA tree, Butman’s node where he branches apart from L540 is surely older than 1,000 years and might even be older than 4,000 years, according to the estimated age of L540.

             What does this mean?  The simplest explanation is that Butman is alone in the E-M35 database, in a very small haplogroup that branches off the branch leading to S3003 and L540 perhaps 2 or 3 millennia ago.  Another possibility:  he may belong to the recently discovered Z17264 haplogroup, since Bartlett belongs to that one (Table above).  Z17264 is a twig in the main branch Z5018 so Butman might have an MRCA older than Z17264, perhaps.  (The test results might come out Z5018+ Z17264-.)  This paragraph is statistical speculation;  Butman might end up in a new branch of V13, negative for all known branches, for all we know.  This paragraph is a good example of the uncertainty of STR based predictions for outliers.  Big Y or SNP tests are needed here.

 

Fredeen

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             Kit 162917, Fredeen, has been listed at this web page since Mar 2010.  L540+ result May 2011.

             This sample is an STR outlier.  Even with all 111 markers, this Fredeen sample differs a lot from all the other L540 (C type) samples.  The closest neighbor is at step 24;  most L540 samples have closest neighbor at step 14 to 18.  (Samples with the same family name are even closer, of course.)

             The original best L540 signature marker is DYS389 = 13,32;  Fredeen has 13,30, which is the ancestral value (for most Neighborhood samples outside L540).  Fredeen also differs at two other L540 signature markers.

             The simplest explanation is that Fredeen belongs to a branch with a node in the L540 tree that is older than the other nodes.  Perhaps those 3 signature markers mutated to the L540 values after the node leading to Fredeen.

             However, there is an alternate possibility:  Fredeen may belong to one of the currently known branches;  perhaps those 3 signature markers experienced back mutations;  perhaps the Fredeen line has more mutations than normal, due to the luck of mutations.  Read the following topic, Gebert, also an outlier.

             SBP testing is required to determine the branch for this sample.

 

Gebert

             Rewrite 27 Dec 2015.

             I noticed Gebert’s sample on Ysearch and encouraged him to join the E-M35 project, which he did in 2011, kit 166692 in the table.  I helped pay for the orders for the L540 test and for the 111 extension.  He purchased Big Y in 2014.

             Gebert is also an outlier;  read the previous topic, Fredeen, for a brief explanation.  Gebert is not quite as extreme an outlier as Fredeen, with closest neighbor at step 20.  Gebert also has the ancestral DYS389 = 13,30, and also differs at two other signature markers (not the same two as Fredeen).

             In this case, because Gebert purchased Big Y, we know that this sample falls in the Z29042 branch of the L540 tree.  So it is clear that the Gebert line has more than the expected number of STR mutations;  it is just luck that those 3 signature markers mutated back to the ancestral values, because L540 samples both in Z29042 and outside Z29042 have the signature values.  This sample is an example of the limitation of predicting haplogroup based on STR values.

 

Hohnloser

             Rewrite 22 Dec 2015.

             Hohnloser (kit N39989) is another outlier outside L540.  To understand this, please see the topic above for Butman.  Hohnloser is not quite as close to C type as Butman, but otherwise the Butman discussion mostly applies also to Hohnloser.

             Hohnloser has been mentioned here at this web page since 2010.

             Hohnloser also does not belong to the L540 haplogroup because his SNP test came out negative.  He has not been tested for S3003.

             Hohnloser’s nearest neighbors at 111 markers, step 22, are Butman and two other samples not in the Table above.  Hohnloser’s nearest neighbors with haplogroup identification are at the next step, 23, 3 samples, 2 of which are L241+.  However, Hohnloser tested L241-.  L241 is a branch of Z5018, so maybe Hohnloser might fall in one of the other Z5018 branches.

             Jorg Hohnloser has extensive family tree research results.  He administers a Hohnloser project at FTDNA.  He exchanged helpful email discussions with me.

 

Hochreutter

             New topic 12 Dec 2014.  Edit 17 Dec 2015.

             Kit N45041, Administered by Andrew Hochreiter, who runs the Hochreiter Project.

 

Ysearch

             Update 4 Dec 2015.

             QAZ7P is a direct link to my definition for C type.

             If you are not listed in the table above you can compare your data on Ysearch.  You can compare your step genetic distance to this definition if you have the standard 67 STR markers.  The comparison may not work if you have a non standard marker set.  For more discussion see the notes below the table above.

             To join Ysearch, click on the Create A New User tab, where you can upload your Y-DNA STR data from a number of testing services.  Or, you can type in your data.  You end up with a “User ID”.

             Brief description of Ysearch.  Link to the site home:  http://www.ysearch.org.

 

             Instructions for comparison to C type at Ysearch:

             Click here:  Research Tools (or click on the tab with that name)

             Copy the following line into the “UserIDs” bar at the Research Tools page:

                                        USEID, QAZ7P

             Change USEID to your User ID.

             You need to type the Captcha puzzle for access.

             Click on ‘Show genetic distance report” to see your step genetic distance from C type (from L540).

 

Ancestry.com

             Update 27 Dec 2015.

             Ancestry.com no longer provides a comprehensive Y-DNA database.  They now concentrate on autosomal DNA (all chromosomes, not just Y).

             Kargul originally matched with me at this site, back in 2010, so I encouraged Kargul to join the E-M35 Project.

             I last checked for matches 16 May 2011, when the Y-DNA database was still active.  There were 9 matches of Y-DNA to Kargul & me, but these were not close enough to include in my Neighborhood Table.

 

Age of L540

             Rewrite 22 Dec 2015.  Edit 2 Jan 2016.

             The Yseq Tree provides estimates of age for haplogroups, based on the number of accumulated SNPs.  Here is a link to the V13 section, including L540:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/.  Click on the “info” box for links to details of the Yfull age estimation methodology.

             Compare this to the Fix V13 tree and to my L540 Tree.

             L540 has 25 phyloequivalent SNPs listed by Yseq.  On  that basis, Yseq estimates the L540 branch segment to be 2,100 to 4,300 years before present (ybp).  In other words, L540 and 25 other SNPs are distributed along a (4,300 - 2,100) = 2,200 year segment of the Y-DNA tree between two nodes.  The 4,300 ybp is the node where the known branches of V13 split out - the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the V13 samples at Yseq.  The 2,100 ybp is the node where the known branches of L540 split out.

           The L540 haplogroup seems to be roughly 2,100 years old - the TMRCA for the L540 samples a Yseq.

             That 2,100 year age for L540 haplogroup may likely increase in the future if samples show up with branch nodes older than the currently known branching node of L540.  2,100 years will remain a good estimate for the TMRCA for the two currently known branches, A6295 & Y7026.

             The Fix tree also has additional data not included in the Yseq analysis, for CTS5856 and 3 phyloequivalents as a main V13 branch that includes almost all V13 samples, including L540.  These produce an adjustment in the V13 segment, but there is no effect on the L540 segment.

             The Fix tree also includes S3003, listed by Yfull as one of the L540 phyloequivalents, because the Yfull database does not include that one sample PGP89 that is S3003+ L540-.  This may be confusing, but phyloequivalents are different at Yseq vs Fix because the data is different.  In the Fix tree, S3003 is phyloequivalent to S2999 and S3015;  all three are included in that Yseq list of 25.  In other words, we can split that 2,200 year segment by 3/25 * (2200) = 264, placing the node between S3003 and L540 at (4300 - 264) = 4036, rounded to 4,000 ybp.  The length (in time) of the L540 segment is 2,200 - 264, rounded to 1,900 years.  That has no effect on the L540 TRMCA.

             The actual L540 mutation is probably older than the 2,100 year old TMRCA, because we do not know where the L540 mutation sits along that 1,900 year segment (between 4,000 years ago and 2,100 years ago).

             In previous versions of this L540 web page I used STR mutations to estimate age, but SNPs are preferred now that we have lots of SNP data.

             In my 11 Jul 2011 version, I excluded the two STR outliers Gebert and Fredeen, getting 1,000 years for my STR based estimate for C type without the outliers.  I guessed double that for L540, with high uncertainty because of only two known outliers.  That’s was roughly 2000 years for TMCA previously with STRs, about the same result as today (Dec 2015) using SNPs.

             All these estimates are uncertain because of the small sample size.  For example, that 3/25 adjustment above is based on only 3 samples.  The Yseq tree provides 95% confidence intervals if you hover over those segment ages.  The Yseq 95% confidence range for the L540 TMRCA is 1550 to 2600 ybp.

             However, that Yseq confidence is only for sample size.  Net confidence should be lower because of the caveats associated with DNA age calculations.  There is no way to calculate the effects of such caveats.  I personally think that 1550 to 2600 ypb range is more like a 75% confidence range.

 

Origin of L540

             Update 27 Dec 2015:

             The neighborhood table shows 25 samples with “+” indicating confirmed L540 with an SNP test.  9 of these indicate “Germany” as the origin of their most distant known ancestor.  That’s 36% Germany.  Actually, that needs adjustment for recruitment:  3 of the 4 “Poland” were recruited by me, where I paid for the L540 test;  1 of the 4 “Sweden” is a repeat family name;  both “Russia” were recruited.  All 9 “Germany” samples are independent as far as I know.  So adjusting the statistics for recruitment, that means 9 out of 19 independent samples come from Germany, which is 47% Germany.

             In addition, there are 12 samples predicted C type at 67 markers (< step 8 in the C54(67) column);  most of these would probably be L540+ if tested.  6 of them indicate “Germany” and 6 are “Unknown” so more than half are probably German.

             That is very good (although not 100% certain) evidence that the MRCA of L540 lived in what is now Germany. 

             It is also possible that most of his descendants migrated to Germany from somewhere else.

             If not Germany, it seems very likely the origin is somewhere in central or eastern or northern Europe.  Even this is not 100% certain, because there is some bias in on-line DNA data toward Europe.  Many parts of the world are not represented well in the database.  I suppose there is a slight chance that someday L540 samples will show up as common elsewhere - for example a group of villages somewhere in the mountains of Russia, or somewhere in the Balkans. or somewhere on the Eurasian Steppe.  Discussing an origin on the basis of so few samples is a bit speculative.  We’ll see how it comes out as more data accumulates.

             How about those 25 SNPs (previous topic) that are phyloequivalent to L540 (22 in the Fix tree)?  Those represent a smooth branch of the tree, with no branches (or none yet discovered).  The smooth branch length in time seems to be about 1,900 years.  The default explanation is statistical;  most Y-DNA branches become extinct;  our L540 MRCA is the lucky individual who won the ancestry lottery.  If it seems to you counter intuitive that most branches die out, check my discussion on extinction.

             It is possible there was a population bottleneck to accelerate the pruning of branches.  There may have been a severe reduction of population in the region of the L540 origin, followed by a population expansion at the time of the ancestor - TMRCA - or soon after.

 

Size of L540

             New topic 29 Dec 2015.

             I estimate there are 100,000 L540 males living in the world.  This is my very rough educated guess, explained here in this topic.  This estimate is surely not wrong by a factor of 10;  my 90% confidence range is a factor of 3;  in other words the actual number is very likely between 33,000 and 300,000.  My basis:

             There are 25 samples (men) that fit my C54(67) definition.  I have high confidence at 67 markers, so that number 25 is not far off.  My definitions work well at capturing only L540 samples.  From my experience I expect a few outliers to show up out of the samples just missed by the definition.  However, a few of those 25 were recruited, making L540 seem bigger.  On balance, I see no reason to statistically adjust that 25 number up or down.

             That data is from the E-M35 Project, downloaded 1 Nov 2015.  Only 30 samples are clearly not E-M35 in that project, and at 67 or more markers prediction of E-M35 can be done with very high confidence.  There are 1711 samples with 67 (or 111) markers that are clearly E-M35.  That means the percent of L540 in the M35 Project is 25 / 1711 = 1.46%.

             Ysearch gives 4.90% as the proportion of their database that belongs to E-M35.  Multiplying 1.46% times 4.90% equals 0.0716%, which is 1/14000.

             So it seems about 1 out of 14,000 of the samples in the full database at FTDNA, or at Ysearch, should be L540 samples.  I’m assuming here that M35 men are just as likely to sign up for a project as non-M35 men.  I’m assuming that the full FTDNA database can be represented by Ysearch.  These assumptions may not be exactly correct, but it’s not obvious if I should compensate with a slight increase or slight decrease of that 14,000 number.  I won’t adjust this;  the uncertainty in my last step, next paragraphs, is much more significant:

             I cannot use full the world population of about 7.3 billion, because L540 ancestry is concentrated in Europe.  Also, on-line databases are biased toward developed countries, where individuals can afford the DNA tests.

             I need to make an educated guess for the fraction of world population that contributes to the FTDNA and Ysearch databases, and is representative of the populations where L540 can be found.  Here, I might make a big mistake:  Maybe there is a significant population of L540 men somewhere obscure, where men are unlikely to buy DNA tests, for example in the Balkans, or in North Africa, due to mass migrations during the last 2 millennia;  maybe L540 is larger than it seems.  On the other hand, if L540 ancestry is concentrated in Germany, and if men of German ancestry are over-represented in FTDNA, then maybe L540 is smaller than it seems.  We don’t know.

             My estimate is roughly 1/5 for the “fraction of the world”.  Actually, my estimate is 1.4 billion people as the world population representative of L540 and representative of the men who join FTDNA and Ysearch.  I picked exactly 1.4 billion because dividing by 14,000 give the nice round 100,000 result.  That’s my rough guess.  Obviously, the uncertainty is dominated by this 1.4 billion estimate.

             Uncertainty discussion:

             That number of samples, 25, is not a very large number.  90% Poisson Confidence range is 17 to 35 which contributes about a factor of 1.5 uncertainty.  This is small compared to that “fraction of the world” uncertainty.

             That 4.90% comes from the Ysearch site, at the “Statistics” tab, where the data was figured in 2007, when E-M35 was called E3b.  2007 data may not be perfect, but again any uncertainty in the 4.90% is surely much smaller than my uncertainty in that “fraction of the world” uncertainty.

             Regarding that “fraction of the world”, it seems to me 1/2 of the world would be far too large a guess, and 1/10th of the world would be far too small a guess.  Roughly 1/5th seems like a good compromise.  There is no way to calculate the uncertainty of that guess.

             My guess for 90% confidence is a factor of 3, net for all uncertainty reasons, as stated in the first paragraph of this topic.

 

Validity of C Type

             Edit 27 Dec 2015.

             Quite frankly, I was originally surprised by cluster C.  Friedman did a good job finding this one.  I admit I dismissed it when I first saw cluster C in 2007 because it was so small that statistical significance did not seem possible to me.  I postponed analysis until Jan 2010, independently verifying cluster C as C type.

             By “valid” I mean a cluster whereby most of the samples belong to a single clade, and whereby very few other samples in the database belong to that clade.  In other words, a valid cluster should eventually have a corresponding SNP discovered.  Throughout 2010 I confidently predicted such an SNP here in this topic, although I doubted it would be discovered soon.  L540 turned up in my WTY (next topic) in 2011.  C type is the STR equivalent of L540.

 

My WTY Analysis

             Edit 27 Dec 2015.

             Fifteen new SNPs were discovered in my “Walk Through the Y” (WTY).  L535 through L547, L614, and L618.  All 15 are available as commercial SNP tests from  FTDNA.

             My WTY test read about 200,000 base pairs of the Y chromosome in Feb 2011.  WTY is no longer available, having been replaced by Big Y.

             I announced 8 new SNPs here on 29 Mar 2011.  The count on 30 Mar was 13 new SNPs in my WTY.  L614 was added in June.  L618 was added in August.  That was a lot more than I expected.  I now realize that’s because FTDNA expanded the number of DNA bases included in WTY just before my test.  Also, I seem to have been the first WTY from E-M78 in quite some time.

 

SNP Test Orders

             Edit 5 Oct 2015:

             SNP tests cost about $39 each from FTDNA if your sample is already there from previous testing.  From your FTDNA home page, in the Y-DNA section, click on “Haplotree & SNPs”.  Next, below the haplotree, just above your SNP results (bottom of the page), click on “advanced SNP order form”.  (Do not click on “Order Selected SNPs” unless the SNP you wish is available for selection in the tree.)  Next, the box “Test Type” should say “SNP”.  Type the SNP code (for example L540) into the “Find” box to search for it.  Click on “Find” and when the SNP comes up click on “Add” to order it.

             FTDNA has been slow adding new SNP tests.  If FTDNA does not have the SNP for your new haplogroup, try Yseq, where SNPs cost $17.50.  If you are new to Yseq, they only charge $5 to mail the cheek swab kit, required for your first SNP order.

 

References & Sources

             Update 27 Dec 2015.

             Big Y:  https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/y-dna-testing/big-y/.  A commercial product  at FTDNA for reading about 12 million base pairs of the DNA of the Y chromosome, which has about 60 million base pairs total.  New SNPs are being discovered in the Big Y data provided by customers.  This Big Y test replaces the smaller Walk Through Y product, no longer offered.  Other companies offer similar tests;  I recommend FTDNA because I like the convenience of most L540 data being available at the E-M35 project, next:

             E-M35, a project at FTDNA, is my main source of data.  Previously called E3b.  Link:  https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/e-3b/about/background.  The official name today would be E1b1b1.  ISOGG changes the name when new defining SNPs are discovered, so the name may change again in the future.  M35.1 is the name of the SNP that defines E1b1b1 within haplogroup E.  I am not planning a separate L540 project, because it is more convenient to run this web page using the E-M35 project.

             Haplozone is a web site for analysis of data from the E-M35 project.  This site has not been fully updated since September 2013, but it is still useful.  Link:  http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project.  Data from E-M35, plus some data added from sources other than FTDNA, so this database is larger than the E-M35.  Page with a listing of proposed clusters:  http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/.  Page with L540 / C cluster samples:  http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/42.  Discussion forum:  http://community.haplozone.net/

             Yseq:  www.Yseq.net.  A company that provides Y- SNP tests at competitive price and fast turnaround.

             Yfull:  www.Yfull.com.  A company that provides analysis of raw DNA data, very useful for Big Y data.

             SNP Tracker is a web page added to the E-M35 project in late 2011, to keep track of all the new SNP branches in M35.  http://tinyurl.com/e-m35-snps.  Not up to date.

             The V13 data:  http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/10.  V13 is the defining SNP for E1b1b1a1b1a, a major branch haplogroup in E, and “father” of L540.  That page of data does not have the data for samples that have been assigned to clusters as subdivisions of V13, just the data that does not fit any downstream proposed STR cluster.  The number code for other clusters can be typed over that “10” to quickly get to other cluster data.

             Cluster C Data:  http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/42.

             ISOGG link:  http://isogg.org/tree/  Y-DNA tree SNPs and corresponding alphanumeric codes for the haplogroups.  ISOGG names change as new SNP divisions are discovered.  ISOGG names are getting quite long due to the flood of new SNPs in the past few years.  The V13 branch at ISOGG has not been updated in more than a year.  For these reasons, ISOGG codes are being used less often lately;  for example, V13 is often just called E-V13.

             Steve Fix uses Big Y data to maintain an up to date Y tree for V13.

             Andrew Lancaster was an administrator for the E-M35 (E3b) Project.  Andrew had been particularly patient with me with long helpful email discussions.  Villarreal and Friedman had also been very helpful.

             Victor Villarreal was an administrator for the E-M35 Project.

             Elise Friedman was a co-administrator for the E-M35 Project and is administrator for the Jewish E3b project.

             Denis Savard is a current administrator for the E-M35 Project.

 

             Peter Gwozdz.  That’s me.  pete2g2@comcast.net.

 

Revision History

2010 Jan 14 original draft version

2010 13 updates

2011 28 updates

2012 6  updates

2013 7 updates

2014 15 updates

2015 Jan - Jun 15 updates

2015 Jul 22 update with Nowak Big Y result new SNP

2015 Sep 23 update tree;  10 samples;  4 categories

2015 Oct 1 two more results for the tree

2015 Oct 2 update Dividing L540

2015 Oct 16 one more sample in the tree, rewrite of Abstract

2015 Oct 18 update of Neighborhood Table, Dividing L540;  new topic L type

2015 Oct 21 Neighborhood Table, Tree column added, minor edits

2015 Oct 29 several minor updates & edits, multiple topics

2015 Oct 31 edits of C type, V13, V13C, and related topics

2015 Nov 5 L type dropped;  L type topic remains with a note that it is no longer used

2015 Nov 5 New C74(111) definition replaces the old C90(111);  Neighborhood Table updated, but only for 111 marker columns

2015 Nov 17 Update of 67 marker data in the Neighborhood Table, and in the notes below the table

2015 Nov 21 Hartsfield Big Y added to tree at Z29042

2015 Nov 21 C74(111) corrected to C75(111) because DYS425 was not counted but it should be

2015 Nov 22 New branch Z39377

2015 Nov 28 Update 37 marker data in the Neighborhood Table, and in the notes below the table

2015 Dec 4 Update 25 and 12 marker data in the Neighborhood Table - rewrite below the table just finished

2015 Dec 5 Update of STR Marker topics

2015 Dec 10 Edit Neighborhood Table, Tree;  Kovalev Big Y result L540*

2015 Dec 13 Edit Table, Tree

2015 Dec 20 Edit Neighborhood;  fix administrator names;  add one sample

2015 Dec 22 Rewrite Age of L540, Butman, and Hohnloser

2015 Dec 27 Rewrite of several topics including Abstract and L540.  ISOGG code name dropped from the Title.  New topic Location of L540

2015 Dec 29 Delete STR topics DYS390, 406, CDY.  Rewrite a few other topics.  Finish full rewrite of this web page.  New topic Size of L540

2016 Jan 1 Update L540 Tree with Kargul & A9035.