Y haplogroups correlation with number of sons, R1b, I2a-Din, E-V13, G2a

LeBrok

Elite member
Messages
10,261
Reaction score
1,617
Points
0
Location
Calgary
Ethnic group
Citizen of the world
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b Z2109
mtDNA haplogroup
H1c
This possible phenomenon was discussed in many threads, as an explanation to why some Y haplogroups became so dominant. Maciamo's hypothesis about dominance of R1b clades in Western Europe is based on it too. This hypothesis states that males of certain haplogroups, like R1b, or some of its successful clades, can father more sons than daughters. More than other male haplogroups. This way after many generations, this little advantage, in increased number of sons, can grow R1b haplogroup to superior level in population. For example in Ireland and Basque.

It'll be some time till we have true scientific research done in this regard, however there might be a shortcut. We have available statistics of kids sex at birth per country. In Europe more boys are born than girls. Per 100 girls there is 104 to 107 boys born. It seems to be a natural ratio, with exceptions being Albania and Kosovo at 112, and Georgia and rest of Caucasus at 118 boy to girls. These exceptions might be due to selective aborting, a cultural aspect of boys preference. No wonder bride kidnaping is popular there. But I digress.

I prepared a little map how it goes for Europe. What do you think? Is there something to keep this hypothesis alive, and not only for R1b?
The darker the colour the higher the ratio for boys.


Map of ratio boys to girls at birth.jpg

It was based on data from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
 
More interesting material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

And a map showing how it goes for the whole world:
Sex%20Ratio%20Chart%20Edited.png

It is known fact that China and India practice prebirth sex selection. Their ratio is not a natural one.

It is interesting to mention that SS Africa has ratio almost even, as Haiti - mostly black population. It is also true for African Americans. They all range from 100 to 103. This points to strong genetic role of gender selection. However, is Y chromosome involved in this process?
 
those maps just states the obvious......Why would a women want to be born in arabia and be seen as lower class than domestic animals?

but, that site ONLY explains modern trends.............ancient people was based on hunters who needed chiefs/kings which led to first use of a concubine system..........and farmers required NO chiefs or Kings.
 
those maps just states the obvious......Why would a women want to be born in arabia and be seen as lower class than domestic animals?
Actually, Middle East have higher ratio female at birth. The lighter the country, on the map, the more women at birth.

I shouldn't even ask you how woman can make a choice before birth...
 
I've got some Pre-Historic numbers.
EHG: 100 males for every 0 Females.
Steppe: 100 males for every 0 Females.

And also, they were all 6'4, 220 ibs, and 100% Muscle. You might wonder how they reproduced? They spawned out of pure testosterone which is abundant in the air of the Steppe. But by 4000 BC, they started using busty CHG women for reproduction.
conan94984_full.jpg
 
I've got some Pre-Historic numbers.
EHG: 100 males for every 0 Females.
Steppe: 100 males for every 0 Females.

And also, they were all 6'4, 220 ibs, and 100% Muscle. You might wonder how they reproduced? They spawned out of pure testosterone which is abundant in the air of the Steppe. But by 4000 BC, they started using busty CHG women for reproduction.
conan94984_full.jpg

I know who would sign this theory immediatly:grin:
 
This possible phenomenon was discussed in many threads, as an explanation to why some Y haplogroups became so dominant. Maciamo's hypothesis about dominance of R1b clades in Western Europe is based on it too. This hypothesis states that males of certain haplogroups, like R1b, or some of its successful clades, can father more sons than daughters. More than other male haplogroups. This way after many generations, this little advantage, in increased number of sons, can grow R1b haplogroup to superior level in population. For example in Ireland and Basque.

It'll be some time till we have true scientific research done in this regard, however there might be a shortcut. We have available statistics of kids sex at birth per country. In Europe more boys are born than girls. Per 100 girls there is 104 to 107 boys born. It seems to be a natural ratio, with exceptions being Albania and Kosovo at 112, and Georgia and rest of Caucasus at 118 boy to girls. These exceptions might be due to selective aborting, a cultural aspect of boys preference. No wonder bride kidnaping is popular there. But I digress.

I prepared a little map how it goes for Europe. What do you think? Is there something to keep this hypothesis alive, and not only for R1b?
The darker the colour the higher the ratio for boys.


View attachment 7578

It was based on data from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

Looking at this map, if there was something to this would it be yDna "I1" that is disadvantaged in this way? I ask, because the I2a Din area is pretty high. On the other hand, there is E-V13 in those areas too and some R1b and R1a so the high levels could come from the combination of those groups.

In southern Italy you only have 30% R1b in some areas but on the other hand quite a bit of G2a and E-V13 and the areas where those predominate have high rates.

So, I don't know. If G2a Caucasus types have so many boys what happened in central Europe? Was it a different subclade or did they really mostly die of plague and violence?

Modern maps also aren't very helpful because of the selective aborting, as you mentioned. On the other hand, while I haven't done any research I've never known Italian women to get an untrasound and abort girls. Not that boys didn't used to be preferred. A common toast was "Cent'anni e figli maschi", or "May you live a hundred years and have boys". At a wedding they might say "Auguri e figli maschi" or "Congratulations and have boys!" By the post war era that was a thing of the past in northwestern Italy anyway. Couples most often had one child, and whatever it was it was spoiled rotten!

I'm trying to remember the large families of my father and mother's generation, and it's probably a coincidence but they were certainly boy heavy a lot of times...in my father's family there were eleven, and seven were boys. It was pretty lopsided in most of the extended family too. Before you ask, I don't know my father's yDna, but most of that area is very high in U-152. :)

I've read contradictory things about certain diets in women affecting it, probably having to do with the internal environment, but, as I said, there was no agreement in the studies. I do think there's probably some factor in women that affects it too.

There are all the old wives tales, of course, but the least said about those the better, I think. :)

@Fire-Haired

That was really very funny. Complimenti. :) You should photo shop in Kim Kardashian, though, for historical accuracy. :)

Ed. Also funny, just as I posted an ad came up showing busty (therefore surgically altered) East Asian women. Honestly...MEN!
 
Looking at this map, if there was something to this would it be yDna "I1" that is disadvantaged in this way? I ask, because the I2a Din area is pretty high. On the other hand, there is E-V13 in those areas too and some R1b and R1a so the high levels could come from the combination of those groups.

In southern Italy you only have 30% R1b in some areas but on the other hand quite a bit of G2a and E-V13 and the areas where those predominate have high rates.

So, I don't know. If G2a Caucasus types have so many boys what happened in central Europe? Was it a different subclade or did they really mostly die of plague and violence?
If anything we should look into subclades. I couldn't find information about regional variation in birth ratio. It could be great to look into Spain, France and Italy in detail.
Modern maps also aren't very helpful because of the selective aborting, as you mentioned. On the other hand, while I haven't done any research I've never known Italian women to get an untrasound and abort girls. Not that boys didn't used to be preferred. A common toast was "Cent'anni e figli maschi", or "May you live a hundred years and have boys". At a wedding they might say "Auguri e figli maschi" or "Congratulations and have boys!" By the post war era that was a thing of the past in northwestern Italy anyway. Couples most often had one child, and whatever it was it was spoiled rotten!
I believe it was common throughout Europe, and any patriarchal society, I believe; property, inheritance, wealth related issues. Now it is more even Steven, and I don't recall hearing about a case in Poland or Canada of people undergoing selective abortions.
So far in Europe only Caucasus nations and Albania-Kosovo is suspected of it.

I'm trying to remember the large families of my father and mother's generation, and it's probably a coincidence but they were certainly boy heavy a lot of times...in my father's family there were eleven, and seven were boys. It was pretty lopsided in most of the extended family too. Before you ask, I don't know my father's yDna, but most of that area is very high in U-152. :)
I think the phenomenon will be on scale of 1% increase on boy side of some clades, so it should be unnoticable with a naked eye.

I've read contradictory things about certain diets in women affecting it, probably having to do with the internal environment, but, as I said, there was no agreement in the studies. I do think there's probably some factor in women that affects it too.
I remember some studies looking at woman's age in relation to sex of a child, but I don't recall conclusions.

There is amazing and natural discrepancy between natural Sub Saharan African birth ratio and the rest of the races. There is a definitive genetic factor in it.

Supposedly the ratio of sperm carrying male and female material is at even 50% ratio. Why is it then that more boys are born? Boys are faster swimmers? Boys survive in greater number pregnancy? Maybe the truth is that nobody really counted the sex of sperm precisely enough to notice that the numbers are already skewed in testicles?
 
I've got some Pre-Historic numbers.
EHG: 100 males for every 0 Females.
Steppe: 100 males for every 0 Females.

And also, they were all 6'4, 220 ibs, and 100% Muscle. You might wonder how they reproduced? They spawned out of pure testosterone which is abundant in the air of the Steppe. But by 4000 BC, they started using busty CHG women for reproduction.
What about I2a Dinaric and E-V13 hot spots? What kind of men were they to win the "race"? Remember the "race" is not with females, but with other Y haplogroups. For example I2a dinaric could have 107 boys to 105 R1a M458.
 
This possible phenomenon was discussed in many threads, as an explanation to why some Y haplogroups became so dominant. Maciamo's hypothesis about dominance of R1b clades in Western Europe is based on it too. This hypothesis states that males of certain haplogroups, like R1b, or some of its successful clades, can father more sons than daughters. More than other male haplogroups. This way after many generations, this little advantage, in increased number of sons, can grow R1b haplogroup to superior level in population. For example in Ireland and Basque.

It'll be some time till we have true scientific research done in this regard, however there might be a shortcut. We have available statistics of kids sex at birth per country. In Europe more boys are born than girls. Per 100 girls there is 104 to 107 boys born. It seems to be a natural ratio, with exceptions being Albania and Kosovo at 112, and Georgia and rest of Caucasus at 118 boy to girls. These exceptions might be due to selective aborting, a cultural aspect of boys preference. No wonder bride kidnaping is popular there. But I digress.

I prepared a little map how it goes for Europe. What do you think? Is there something to keep this hypothesis alive, and not only for R1b?
The darker the colour the higher the ratio for boys.


View attachment 7578

It was based on data from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
Interesting lebrok.90% of my family are male..my father has 12 brothers an 4 sisters an out of my 51 first cousins it is dominate male.Some of my cousins have had children an most are also male..weird
 
Interesting lebrok.90% of my family are male..my father has 12 brothers an 4 sisters an out of my 51 first cousins it is dominate male.Some of my cousins have had children an most are also male..weird

There are known ways of influencing the sex of a child. Female sperm are slightly heavier than male sperm due to the extra mass of the x chromosome , to have a better chance of a male offspring, use Male from behind as a sex position.
Male sperm swims faster than female sperm, so position noted above is ideal.
All sperm during sex is sent to only one egg tube of the female, so again the faster the sperm the better the chances.
 
It is true that in 2009-2010 I suggested that the Y-chromosome could affect sperm count and motility, thus conferring some Y-DNA haplogroups slightly higher chances of producing sons. This is based on the logic that male spermatozoa swim faster than female ones, but are also more easily killed by vaginal fluids. It has been proven that men with high sperm count and motility had more chances of fathering male offspring. This is why children born from sperm donors (who are screened for sperm quality) are far more likely to be boys.

However it would be an oversimplification to say that men belonging to a broad haplogroup like R1b or E1b1b or J2 has higher or lower chances to father boys. Each Y-chromosome has a nearly unique set of mutations. I have demonstrated that some mutations are more important than others as they correlate with sudden bursts of reproductive male success. This is especially true for mutations happening in the few genes contained in the Y-chromosomes, like the SRY gene. Most mutations that take place each generation are silent or fall in non-coding regions and therefore have no effect on fertility. Mutations in the coding region can either increase or decrease fertility. I believe this is why some Y-haplogroups flourish, while others dwindle and eventually disappear (after thousands of years).

But the quality of one's Y-chromosome is not the only factor determining male fertility success. There is of course the environment (toxins or diseases that can lower fertility), the man's age at conception (sperm count goes down with age, so do the chances of conceiving a boy), as well as the mother's body. It has been proven that the pH of a woman's vagina and uterus influences gender selection. A number of new studies are now hinting that, through some unknown physiologic mechanisms, mammals can choose the sex of their offspring (other article) based on environmental cues. This process was already well documented in birds.

As an avid genealogist, I noticed many years ago that some surnames of my genealogy always tended to have more sons than daughters, and that these surnames also happened to be more common in that region. Conversely people with rare surnames often had more daughters. This is what originally tipped me that some Y-DNA lineages did indeed produced more sons than daughters.

The Huffington Post article above mentions that successful males, like billionaires, typically have more sons than daughters. This may be in part due to the higher testosterone of successful men (and success/victories does boost testosterone as any sport fan would know). If a high social status alone increased the chances of producing sons, kings and emperors would consistently have more boys, which isn't the case. I think that it is more likely that higher testosterone and sperm count correlates more with the self-made man who rose to the top of the social ladder.

War and violence also tend to increase testosterone in men, so that more peaceful countries tend to experience declining sperm count. I have noticed among my relatives and friends that men with more mellow personalities tend to have more girls than the more aggressive types.

In the context of the Indo-European migrations, as long as young men could migrate further and conquer new land for themselves, the more chances they had to produce offspring (by killing male enemies and taking their women) AND to produce boys (higher testosterone brought by war and personal success). That is how haplogroups like R1b-L23, R1a-M417 and J1-L858 each had tremendous expansions in a relatively short time (a few centuries).

I also noticed that the balance between the husband and wife's strength of character was a fairly good determinant of whether a couple will have more boys or girls (the stronger character 'winning'). This is probably related to the above-mentioned unknown mechanisms that influence gender selection in mammals. As I explain in that thread, mtDNA also probably plays a role in determining vaginal pH and therefore a woman's natural bias toward one gender over the other.

So the issue is far more complex than just knowing one's top-level Y-DNA haplogroup.
 

This thread has been viewed 11610 times.

Back
Top