Position wise the coverage is far superior: for example only 50% of my FGC SNPs are being sequenced by BigY and about two thirds of David Wilson's. Although I haven't measured it I have the impression there are often more reads on BigY per position but there are so many anyway that is less of an issue - in fact Greg Magoon told me right at the start that for novel variants even one good read is sufficient. The post-sequencing analysis is far superior. I wouldn't hesitate if I was in your position. Iain > Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:19:55 +0000 > From: rob@themcfaddenproject.com > To: DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Full Genomes vs. Big Y > > > I'm genuinely considering taking advantage of the $999 Full Genomes > offer, but I won't be making that decision lightly. I'm under the > impression that it is meant to be all-encompassing and that I wouldn't > need to take another Y STR or SNP test ever again. Is this true? How > are the results that have come through so far holding up? Any quality > concerns? > > Is it too early to judge the value of the Big Y test in comparison? > > Thanks, > Rob McFadden > S660+ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello, I am the Farrell who FTDNA has now listed as CTS12173+ (N112356). However, I think perhaps the rather random assortment of men (based on their previous snp assignments) that have now been identified as CTS12173+ may be due to FTDNA/Geno2 misidentifying some of us. I looked up CTS12173 on YBrowse today and found that C is the ancestral nucleotide at this position and A is derived, which is odd since my Geno2 raw data, both the original file and the file I downloaded yesterday, indicates that I have the ancestral C nucleotide at this position. I’m not sure how this kind of mistake might happen but it seems fairly clear that I am not CTS12173+. Mike

I'm genuinely considering taking advantage of the $999 Full Genomes offer, but I won't be making that decision lightly. I'm under the impression that it is meant to be all-encompassing and that I wouldn't need to take another Y STR or SNP test ever again. Is this true? How are the results that have come through so far holding up? Any quality concerns? Is it too early to judge the value of the Big Y test in comparison? Thanks, Rob McFadden S660+

Is there a good map of the sub tree of SNPs that I'm going to work thru? Is this it? http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf I'm inclined to do what I can do w/ FTDNA 1st & negotiate with my uncle about another test, but I should probably get an idea of what the sub tree looks like. Thanks for all the help! > >

That's a pretty good summary of my thoughts too. I have someone I am testing at YSEQ, they have gone FGC4077-, S661+ and I am now running S588 and DF85 via the very tempting sale. If they come back negative for both of those, I will turn to the new S660 SNPs. Iain > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:08:02 -0400 > From: chantillycarpets@earthlink.net > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; cecinit2007@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Advice on further testing > > I pulled the 111 marker haplotype and compared it to all those I have in > a data set of just SNP confirmed results. The group that your haplotype > comes closest to is F1265. This is NOT a recommendation to test as I > looked at your Geno2 positive result variant list from Geno2 and do not > see it; hence it appears that you probably are negative for F1265. > > I also have copy of the FTDNA new tree recommended SNPs under M222 and > compared the entire list to your Geno2 positive variant > list...apparently you were negative for all of them if I can trust that > list. > > A word on FTDNA's new haplotree...it is based on Geno2; hence since you > have already tested Geno2, any recommended SNP that you would order off > that tree most probably you have been tested for already through your > Geno2 scan. So forget that haplotree...disregard it altogether. > > If I were to recommend specific SNPs, none of them would be tested by > FTDNA, but by YSEQ, and the cost is less, also, at $25.00 each plus a > $5.00 ship charge. The reason why not FTDNA is because with the > exception of about 4--6 SNPs that FTDNA single SNP tests for with most > of those resulting from Geno2, the rest are tested elsewhere (exceptions > DF104, DF105, DF85, DF97). > > If doing a guess for a recommendation via single snps through YSEQ, I'd > order DF105, S588, and DF85. The out lay would be $80.00. That would > not be the end of testing though. > > There has been some chatter in the forums that people ordering SNPs not > recommended by the FTDNA tree are being charged the full price of $39.00 > rather than the advertised price of $31.00. I checked the advanced > testing SNP catalog, and indeed the price being quoted for them is > $39.00. I do not know if that is a glitch in their ordering system or > what, but since there are complaints being aired, the sale cost doesn't > seem to track for SNPs out of the SNP catalog. > > Since: You have done Geno2 already and FTDNA doesn't have all the Down > Stream SNPs for R-M222 that we've been finding very useful, I see your > choices are this > > 1. Test Scotland DNAs Chromo2 Raw Data (cost about $200.00 American). > That will test for most of the R-M222 down stream SNPs. > > 2. Test YSEQ with a rather safe recommendation of the 3 SNPs above (cost > $80.00); you would need to do further investigation after that to > confirm a present day terminal SNP. Those 3, however, will probably > give some direction for other testing and YSEQ sale continues thru > Father's Day, June 15; their testing turn around time is generally > shorter than FTDNA's although with this sale they may not be a quick as > they have been. > > 3. If you must test with FTDNA, test DF105 and DF85 (they do not offer > S588 and you apparently are negative for all the other GENO2 tested SNPs > that were down stream of M222 via that scanning array.) (cost for those > 2 could be $78.00 unless they've done something about the sale price > tracking since the complaints began. > > I hope this helps. Susan Hedeen > > > > On 4/26/2014 7:07 PM, Michael Helm wrote: > > Since FTDNA &al are offering testing sales I thought I'd ask advice about > > further testing. > > > > My maternal uncle has tested into M222 - you can see his results on the > > project > > page as kit 324585 earliest ancestor Eugene Owen Donnelly. > > > > The new FTDNA haplotree page seems to be having some big problems today, so > > I can't report what it offers. I think I can pull off the tested list if > > anybody wants to see that. > > We've combined FTDNA 111 and National Geno 2.0 tests. > > > > I was just going to let this sit until the Chromo 2 / Big Y / Full Y > > craziness settled down > > but if there's some refinement I can do now that would take advantage of > > the > > sale I'd do it. I'm more interested in targeted SNP tests (I don't know > > much about > > this part of the L21 space - my own Y DNA is in another subclade of L21). > > > > Thanks, ==mwh > > Michael Helm > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Rob,    I ordered the Full Genome yesterday. You're looking at a price difference of only $300.00 and yet you get a much higher quality product from those I have spoken to who have chosen FGC. I certainly don't want to make any claims about it, but perhaps an analogy, that after the forums I read yesterday it almost looks to me that FTDNA hired a consulting firm that were scam artists; I've seen many businesses go under because of that. I even read one example where someone went through the process of ordering a SNP and was charged $39 for it instead of the advertised $31. Regardless, if you were to order FGC today, hopefully the mess will be cleared up by the time your test results came in. Slainte, Michael Anthony McNally f198682 Ysearch: SMP2Q Chromo 2 : S603+ On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:15 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: Position wise the coverage is far superior: for example only 50% of my FGC SNPs are being sequenced by BigY and about two thirds of David Wilson's. Although I haven't measured it I have the impression there are often more reads on BigY per position but there are so many anyway that is less of an issue - in fact Greg Magoon told me right at the start that for novel variants even one good read is sufficient. The post-sequencing analysis is far superior. I wouldn't hesitate if I was in your position. Iain > Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:19:55 +0000 > From: rob@themcfaddenproject.com > To: DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] Full Genomes vs. Big Y > > > I'm genuinely considering taking advantage of the $999 Full Genomes  > offer, but I won't be making that decision lightly.  I'm under the  > impression that it is meant to be all-encompassing and that I wouldn't  > need to take another Y STR or SNP test ever again.  Is this true?  How  > are the results that have come through so far holding up?  Any quality  > concerns? > > Is it too early to judge the value of the Big Y test in comparison? > > Thanks, > Rob McFadden > S660+ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message                         ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Another 2 to 4 weeks and my agonizing wait for my Chromo2 results should be over. Feels like I've already been waiting 2 to 4 years! Looking at my GD from some of the people on Iain's chart, I'm wondering if I might come out under FGC4077/4078 - just have to wait and see. (Actually that's not tested by Chromo2 is it? So I'll have to wait even longer.) Geoff

Those are two separate men, actually. I'll ask them both to test. Kyle DePew FTDNA Kit# N113849 On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:34 PM, David Wilson <dcw1000@live.com> wrote: > That is possible, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss its potential > significance. I see that you have a GD of 0/67 and 3/111 from a man named > Gray. If there was a possibility of a SNP match, I would think this man > would be a test candidate for both DF105 and Z70, > > David Wilson > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kyle DePew > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:39 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] The 24 FTDNA SNPs below M222; Locations proposed for > PF3292 and Z70, and rough locations for others. > > I'm one of the supposed Z70+ individuals, and over the last couple months > narrowed down my matches to a couple of families named Feeney and Connolly > that carry most or all of my off-modals over 67 markers. (All of these > individuals are from Connemara according to the kit administrators and none > of them are in the M222 Project, if I remember correctly.) At least one of > these Feeneys had Geno 2.0 testing and, though I haven't seen his actual > file, his list of positive SNPs does not include Z70. I would think maybe > Z70 under M222 is unreliable as well? > > Kyle > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Of course, you can join the Gormley group. I never keep anyone from joining any of my groups. Hope you are well and not impacted by all this crazy spring weather. Marianne At 07:29 PM 4/26/2014 -0700, you wrote: >Marianne, > This might end up being an interesting group. Do you think you > might be interested or are you too busy? Also, can I join the Gormley Group? > > >Mike McNally > > >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:31 AM, Marianne Granoff ><granoff@zianet.com> wrote: > > >The project administrator liaison is Lisa Janine Cloud at >janinec@ftdna.com . You might try emailing her directly. > >Marianne Manley Granoff >Albuquerqie > >At 07:57 PM 4/25/2014 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >I requested an FTDNA surname project about a month ago, and haven't heard > > >anything back yet. Anyone have connects? I have managed to talk several > >Loughneys into getting their yDNA tested and I want to start to compare the > >results. > > > >thanks, > >John > > > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > >----- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7395 - Release Date: 04/25/14 > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7401 - Release Date: 04/26/14

I pulled the 111 marker haplotype and compared it to all those I have in a data set of just SNP confirmed results. The group that your haplotype comes closest to is F1265. This is NOT a recommendation to test as I looked at your Geno2 positive result variant list from Geno2 and do not see it; hence it appears that you probably are negative for F1265. I also have copy of the FTDNA new tree recommended SNPs under M222 and compared the entire list to your Geno2 positive variant list...apparently you were negative for all of them if I can trust that list. A word on FTDNA's new haplotree...it is based on Geno2; hence since you have already tested Geno2, any recommended SNP that you would order off that tree most probably you have been tested for already through your Geno2 scan. So forget that haplotree...disregard it altogether. If I were to recommend specific SNPs, none of them would be tested by FTDNA, but by YSEQ, and the cost is less, also, at $25.00 each plus a $5.00 ship charge. The reason why not FTDNA is because with the exception of about 4--6 SNPs that FTDNA single SNP tests for with most of those resulting from Geno2, the rest are tested elsewhere (exceptions DF104, DF105, DF85, DF97). If doing a guess for a recommendation via single snps through YSEQ, I'd order DF105, S588, and DF85. The out lay would be $80.00. That would not be the end of testing though. There has been some chatter in the forums that people ordering SNPs not recommended by the FTDNA tree are being charged the full price of $39.00 rather than the advertised price of $31.00. I checked the advanced testing SNP catalog, and indeed the price being quoted for them is $39.00. I do not know if that is a glitch in their ordering system or what, but since there are complaints being aired, the sale cost doesn't seem to track for SNPs out of the SNP catalog. Since: You have done Geno2 already and FTDNA doesn't have all the Down Stream SNPs for R-M222 that we've been finding very useful, I see your choices are this 1. Test Scotland DNAs Chromo2 Raw Data (cost about $200.00 American). That will test for most of the R-M222 down stream SNPs. 2. Test YSEQ with a rather safe recommendation of the 3 SNPs above (cost $80.00); you would need to do further investigation after that to confirm a present day terminal SNP. Those 3, however, will probably give some direction for other testing and YSEQ sale continues thru Father's Day, June 15; their testing turn around time is generally shorter than FTDNA's although with this sale they may not be a quick as they have been. 3. If you must test with FTDNA, test DF105 and DF85 (they do not offer S588 and you apparently are negative for all the other GENO2 tested SNPs that were down stream of M222 via that scanning array.) (cost for those 2 could be $78.00 unless they've done something about the sale price tracking since the complaints began. I hope this helps. Susan Hedeen On 4/26/2014 7:07 PM, Michael Helm wrote: > Since FTDNA &al are offering testing sales I thought I'd ask advice about > further testing. > > My maternal uncle has tested into M222 - you can see his results on the > project > page as kit 324585 earliest ancestor Eugene Owen Donnelly. > > The new FTDNA haplotree page seems to be having some big problems today, so > I can't report what it offers. I think I can pull off the tested list if > anybody wants to see that. > We've combined FTDNA 111 and National Geno 2.0 tests. > > I was just going to let this sit until the Chromo 2 / Big Y / Full Y > craziness settled down > but if there's some refinement I can do now that would take advantage of > the > sale I'd do it. I'm more interested in targeted SNP tests (I don't know > much about > this part of the L21 space - my own Y DNA is in another subclade of L21). > > Thanks, ==mwh > Michael Helm > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Marianne,    This might end up being an interesting group. Do you think you might be interested or are you too busy? Also, can I join the Gormley Group? Mike McNally On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:31 AM, Marianne Granoff <granoff@zianet.com> wrote: The project administrator liaison is Lisa Janine Cloud at janinec@ftdna.com .  You might try emailing her directly. Marianne Manley Granoff Albuquerqie At 07:57 PM 4/25/2014 -0700, you wrote: >Hi all, > >I requested an FTDNA surname project about a month ago, and haven't heard >anything back yet. Anyone have connects?  I have managed to talk several >Loughneys into getting their yDNA tested and I want to start to compare the >results. > >thanks, >John > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7395 - Release Date: 04/25/14 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have now received the Dowell BAM file and lucky I did as I can now confirm that he is FGC8739+ too, despite it not being reported for him. Iain > From: ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:42:16 +0000 > Subject: [R-M222] New DF97 marker > > Analysis of Ron Donaldson's FGC data along with BigY data shows a SNP named FGC8739 which is negative in Lally (DF85+ DF97-) and McCollum (S668+ DF97-) but positive in Donaldson and McConnaughhay 205297, both DF97+. The report for Dowell indicates the SNP was not read in his test and we are still awaiting the BAM file to confirm. The reads for Lally, McCollum and Donaldson have all been confirmed in the raw data by me. > > This SNP should then be around the DF97 level and requires investigation to determine if it is below DF97 or 'equivalent' to it. I have discussed this with Susan and some candidates have been suggested. Susan I believe will get some of her people to try it and we also think a McKee and a Doherty should try it too. You can order it now from yseq for the sale price referred to by Susan just now. > > http://shop.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=1332 > > When we have a few results in we can tentatively place it on the tree... all we need to know is which level, alongside DF97 or below it, splitting some people off. > > This SNP was found by Greg Magoon in Ron Donaldson's BGI sequencing data so thanks to both. An accompanying SNP FGC8738 was unfortunately rejected as untestable by Thomas Krahn. Thanks also to Thomas for his help in getting the new SNP on sale so quickly. > > Iain > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I checked your uncle's SNP/Haplotree page at FTDNA and there is definitely something wrong there -- it starts loading but never completes. That is not happening on other individual's pages. You should probably contact FTDNA and file a problem report. As to testing, your uncle stands at not too great a genetic distance from individuals who are FGC4077 and DF105. Those markers are at or near the top of two of the four known divisions in the tree below M222. Genetic distance suggests he would not belong to one of the two smaller branches. If you wanted to take advantage of discount pricing, I'd think FGC4077 and DF105 would be good candidates. If you are not familiar with www.yseq.com, I would suggest you also consider them for targeted testing. They are having a sale as well at this time with prices a little lower than FTDNA's. Your uncle would have to submit a new sample to them, which may or may not be an annoyance and would add a few bucks to the initial test order from them. Other members of this list might also have suggestions about SNPs to test. If you have tested to a specific major subdivision of L21, feel free to mention it here. Several members of this list watch SNPs upstream from M222 as well, and there may be discount testing opportunities for you too at this time. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Helm Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:07 PM To: DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com; DNA-R1B1C7@rootsweb.com Subject: [R-M222] Advice on further testing Since FTDNA &al are offering testing sales I thought I'd ask advice about further testing. My maternal uncle has tested into M222 - you can see his results on the project page as kit 324585 earliest ancestor Eugene Owen Donnelly. The new FTDNA haplotree page seems to be having some big problems today, so I can't report what it offers. I think I can pull off the tested list if anybody wants to see that. We've combined FTDNA 111 and National Geno 2.0 tests. I was just going to let this sit until the Chromo 2 / Big Y / Full Y craziness settled down but if there's some refinement I can do now that would take advantage of the sale I'd do it. I'm more interested in targeted SNP tests (I don't know much about this part of the L21 space - my own Y DNA is in another subclade of L21). Thanks, ==mwh Michael Helm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks David for making the point that CTS12773 is above M222. Angelika kriss had sent me a lineage for some other ordered SNPs above and below M222 as follows: CTS8221 S474 S476 S193 Zs961 R1b-M222 S635 S637 S641 S7073 Does this concur with what you know as an administrator? David On 2014-04-26, 12:44 PM, "David Wilson" <dcw1000@live.com> wrote: >David, > >Mixed findings to report: As I look at your FTDNA SNP summary this >morning, >I see you positive for CTS12173 with no report for CTS12773. I don't find >a >positive report for CTS12773 anywhere in the M222 or Wilson surname >projects, which are the two I can access. CTS12773 does not appear to be >included in the Geno2 chip, which would explain its absence from any Geno2 >test results reported by FTDNA. > >On the other hand, CTS12773 is included in the Chromo2 chip. Jim Wilson's >lab reports CTS12773 positive for everyone below Haplogroup I-M253, so >every >R-M222 individual should be positive for this SNP. > >I'm not sure what this means in your case, but I will let the FTDNA >managers >know that CTS12173 is a problem SNP across a number of individuals who >were >reported to be derived for it. At our current level of knowledge, it >appears >to be impossible to reconcile observed +/- determinations with a logically >consistent ChrY tree. > >David Wilson > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com >[mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Maclennan >Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:29 AM >To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [R-M222] The 24 FTDNA SNPs below M222; Locations proposed for >PF3292 and Z70, and rough locations for others. > >David, can you please check the CTS12773+ status of the others >misrepresented as CTS12173+ (I am CTS12773+). We have had at least one >case >in this forum of typos that caused confusion, so that is a potential >explanation of what happened at ftDNA. > David > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm one of the supposed Z70+ individuals, and over the last couple months narrowed down my matches to a couple of families named Feeney and Connolly that carry most or all of my off-modals over 67 markers. (All of these individuals are from Connemara according to the kit administrators and none of them are in the M222 Project, if I remember correctly.) At least one of these Feeneys had Geno 2.0 testing and, though I haven't seen his actual file, his list of positive SNPs does not include Z70. I would think maybe Z70 under M222 is unreliable as well? Kyle On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM, David Maclennan < david.maclennan@utoronto.ca> wrote: > David, can you please check the CTS12773+ status of the others > misrepresented as CTS12173+ (I am CTS12773+). We have had at least one > case in this forum of typos that caused confusion, so that is a potential > explanation of what happened at ftDNA. > David > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

That is possible, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss its potential significance. I see that you have a GD of 0/67 and 3/111 from a man named Gray. If there was a possibility of a SNP match, I would think this man would be a test candidate for both DF105 and Z70, David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kyle DePew Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:39 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] The 24 FTDNA SNPs below M222; Locations proposed for PF3292 and Z70, and rough locations for others. I'm one of the supposed Z70+ individuals, and over the last couple months narrowed down my matches to a couple of families named Feeney and Connolly that carry most or all of my off-modals over 67 markers. (All of these individuals are from Connemara according to the kit administrators and none of them are in the M222 Project, if I remember correctly.) At least one of these Feeneys had Geno 2.0 testing and, though I haven't seen his actual file, his list of positive SNPs does not include Z70. I would think maybe Z70 under M222 is unreliable as well? Kyle

Since FTDNA &al are offering testing sales I thought I'd ask advice about further testing. My maternal uncle has tested into M222 - you can see his results on the project page as kit 324585 earliest ancestor Eugene Owen Donnelly. The new FTDNA haplotree page seems to be having some big problems today, so I can't report what it offers. I think I can pull off the tested list if anybody wants to see that. We've combined FTDNA 111 and National Geno 2.0 tests. I was just going to let this sit until the Chromo 2 / Big Y / Full Y craziness settled down but if there's some refinement I can do now that would take advantage of the sale I'd do it. I'm more interested in targeted SNP tests (I don't know much about this part of the L21 space - my own Y DNA is in another subclade of L21). Thanks, ==mwh Michael Helm

I don't know if some of you are going to think I'm wasting my money but I've ordered cts12173. I've also ordered f3952 from ftdna to check if the result agrees with my chromo2. Mitchell was one of small number of Geno 2.0 who was z365+ while I am negative for it in my chromo2 so that must mean either Geno or Chromo2 is wrong on that snp. Sent from my iPhone

David, can you please check the CTS12773+ status of the others misrepresented as CTS12173+ (I am CTS12773+). We have had at least one case in this forum of typos that caused confusion, so that is a potential explanation of what happened at ftDNA. David

Dear Mike, I know that you have taken on an incredible amount of work in building so many central files that are so useful to us. I¹m also sure that you are regularly updating your file: //localhost/Users/dhm1/Downloads/R1b-M222_Haplotypes.xlsm My problem is that I don¹t know how to access any version of the file dated after March 7. Can you please tell me if you have made later versions available and, if so, how I can access them? Also, in the March 7 version, I could not figure out how to open the 111 marker file. Can you please tell me how to do this? Thanks, David