Surnames and Genetic Structure

Abstract

Surnames are inherited in much the same way as are biological traits. Since surnames were generally adopted - in Europe during Medieval times - their distribution has become very uneven: analysis of the present geographic patterns provides an insight into the kind of redistribution of genes that has resulted from all the migrations of the intervening years. Using non-technical language and a minimum of mathematics, this book presents a lucid description and evaluation of these studies of the genetic structure of human populations. A special feature is the appendix which presents computer-generated maps and distribution diagrams of 100 common surnames in England and Wales.

Effect of Recent Historical Events on Migration and Isonymic Stratification among the Rama Amerindians from Nicaragua

“…Verification of this system among the Rama was achieved through genealogical reconstructions. Because surnames are inherited paternally among all members of the Rama, the surnames of female participants were included in the sample in order to model both lines of descent as marked by surname inheritance and to augment the sample size (Lasker 1985).…”

“…Ideally, isonymic models assume that surnames have monophyletic origins and are transmitted from parents to biological children, simulating neutral alleles (Colantonio et al 2003;Lasker 1991). For this reason, surname distributions can be used for inferring genetic structure, admixture, genetic drift, and estimates of the intensity and directionality of human migrations (Darlu et al 2012;Koertvelyessy et al 1988;Lasker 1985;Rodríguez-Larralde et al 2011). Non-random or assortative mating in human populations can result in surname stratification or subdivision while geographic isolation, conflicts, religion, and other cultural behaviors can contribute to their spatial distribution (Fix 1999;Koertvelyessy et al 1988;North and Crawford 1996).…”

Delineating Europe's Cultural Regions: Population Structure and Surname Clustering

“…It is this latter, regional, interpretation of isonymy that has gained greater currency over the last decades and is the one used here. The coefficient of isonymy extends the idea of monophyly (sharing a single common ancestor) between two populations and is defined by Lasker (1985) as "the probability of members of two populations or subpopulations having genes in common by descent as estimated from sharing the same surnames" (Lasker 1985:142). This coefficient is based on the similarity of the surname frequency distribution between two populations.…”

“…The name "Smith," for example, describes an occupation found within every community across the country and hence resulted in a heterophyletic surname. However, it is also the case that even if two populations with very similar surname distributions do not share unique common ancestors, they are nevertheless much more likely to be genetically related to one another, in comparison with a population that has a very different surname makeup (Lasker 1985).…”

“…This is mainly because surnames were "fixed" in most populations several centuries ago, and their transmission over generations (mostly patrilinearly) typically conforms to socio-economic, religious and cultural characteristics (Smith 2002) as well as geographical constraints ). The outcome is a variety of spatial patterns that manifest processes of biological inheritance (Lasker 1985) and intergenerational inheritance of culture (CavalliSforza and Feldman 1981). The vast literature in this area is principally concerned with analyzing population structure in surname frequency distributions at national or sub-national levels (for a review see Colantonio et al 2003).…”