David I now understand that the appearance of CTS12173 in my entry into Mike¹s haplogroup file originated with ftDNA. Is there any point in informing ftDNA about their misrepresentation of our SNPs and calling them out for their carelessness, or are you and other administrators already doing that? David

With the few replacement Chromo2 raw files sent my way and the reports yielded for the positive variant list, a consistent change is the addition of a positive call for PF2640. I have now received a question about it. PF2640 is one of those SNPs high up on the R1b tree that we would expect all R1b to be positive for. The SNP in phylogeny falls somewhere between haplogroups F and K in the tree. The negative calls in Chromo2 was erroneous; hence BISDNA investigated and corrected the problem. Susan

Not crazy, bravely intuitive. I believe the single SNP testing is yet done with Sanger, and we actually need this information since both Chromo2 and Geno2 were scanning arrays. It has crossed my mind that the recommendations from FTDNA may be their way of attempting to validate certain Geno2 results. I know in a few other projects that the Geno2 results are still being questioned, and one consternation over a particular SNP and its variable calls has been in the literal war zone for over a year as apparently the derived state could mean a division but the results are yet being deemed inconsistent. If that is what they are doing, vetting Geno2 results, I could be charitable to the process if they owned up to it and made it clear; but to recommend the retesting of SNPs, and charging for them, after these SNPs had been tested with result by their scanning array for a fee already, gives me heartburn. Additionally, I would have thought that they would have been more diligent about that when the questions and complaints were coming in. I have a reference for that due diligence in how Jim Wilson team at BISDNA handled the observations of the early weeks after release of Chromo2. There is no comparison. They began the validation process then and there and did it in house at no additional fee. The other issue for me, even if I can speculate that they now may be vetting, is the recommendation to test SNPs that cannot be found positive under any condition in candidates where the phylogeny of their SNPs for all intents and purposes has already been settled...such as recommending confirmed by single SNP tests in their labs of DF97 under DF85 and then recommending F3952. It is irresponsible IMO. The rationalization they put forth (in paraphrase) is that they don't take the word of observation -- the only proof they accept is evidence out of published work or observation in their own lab. Well in these samples positive for DF97 and DF85 single SNP testing already (deemed F3952 negative separately from Geno2) was in their lab in all instances, so that rationalization seems a bit disingenuous to me even if they could go to the extent of arguing that they have not vetted the phylogeny yet. We know this is true, obviously, they haven't. Susan Do not misunderstand me...this is not a "bash FTDNA" On 4/26/2014 11:04 AM, Robert McBride wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

With one exception, the SNPs that Angi reported to you are either upstream from R-M222 or synonymous with it. At the bottom, the last one (S7073) appears on slim evidence to be underneath M222. There is one individual known who is M222+ but S7073-. Here is graphic from Jim Wilson's lab that shows how these SNPS line up top to bottom and includes a few others not mentioned in your list. This graphic omits CTS8221, but that SNP lies directly above S474/DF49 http://www.kennedydna.com/S474.jpg For the bigger L21 picture, check out this graphic: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Tree_Chart.pdf The group that interests us is in light blue on the right. 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 9:54 AM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] CTS12173, CTS12773 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 ------------------------------- 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

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

sources such as THE ASHLEY FAMILY by Elizabeth Willis DeHuff, 358 YEARS [ More results from archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com ] Title details ('The family of Robert Willis of Barnwell ') - ... https://familysearch.org/.../supermainframeset.asp?...family... Authors, DeHuff, Elizabeth Willis (Elizabeth Mary Willis), 1886- (Main Author) ... Includes Ashley, Head, Culpepper, Newport, Watson, Weathersbee and related ... Title details ('The Bush family as descended from ... https://familysearch.org/.../supermainframeset.asp?...family... Authors, DeHuff, Elizabeth Willis (Elizabeth Mary Willis), 1886- (Main Author) ... Includes Ashley, Baker, Bailey, Blackshear, Blount, Bowers, Bryan, Bush, Council ... [ More results from familysearch.org ] [PDF] Registration Form - National Register _www.nationalregister.sc.gov/barnwell/.../S10817706001.pdf_ (http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/barnwell/.../S10817706001.pdf) - Similar to Registration Form - National Register residence probably built for a member of the Ashley or Willis families between 1830 and 1850. ..... 188; Elizabeth DeHuff, “The Family of Robert Willis of. Robison Family, pg 3 - Our Southern Cousins oursoutherncousins.com/robison3.html - Similar to Robison Family, pg 3 - Our Southern Cousins >From "The Dunbar Family of Barnwell County, South Carolina" by Elizabeth William DeHuff, 1950. The Children of George Heyward Robison .... sp: William Elmore ASHLEY (d.25 Nov 1946-Ellenton,SC) | | | |-5. Clarice (Mrs. Bonner of Dallas, ... Hillsborough Historical Society Newsletter No.7 | OrangeNCHistory orangenchistory.wordpress.com/.../hillsborough-historical-society-newslette. .. Feb 6, 2014 ... Mrs. Elizabeth W. DeHuff, 2429 Walton Way, Augusta, Ga., would like ... Charles Ashley as well as about the Boyd and Willis families in early ... The Bush Family of Georgia:Information about William James Bush I familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/u/s/.../UHP-0417.html - Similar to The Bush Family of Georgia:Information about William James Bush I (ELIZ DEHUFF P79) ... THUS PROVING THREE WILLIAM BUSH'S IN THIS FAMILY. DAVID ... Elizabeth Willis DeHuff theorizes in her book "The Bush Family as Batey Family Tree:Index of Individuals - Genealogy.com familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/a/t/.../UHP-Index.... - Similar to Batey Family Tree:Index of Individuals - Genealogy.com Batey Family Tree: Index of Individuals .... Abt. 1573) Ashley, Elizabeth Anne(b. Abt. 1599) ..... Dehuff. Dehuff, John(b. Bet. 1687 - 1707, d. Bet. 1721 - 1793) ... Note from Ruth Linley (Columbia, SC) February 2004: "There is another cemetery nearer to the Savannah River that I remember going to as a child. I do not know who was buried there, but suspect that it may have been the older Robison's. It is completely inaccessible now, even if I could locate it. A Mr. Morris from Augusta bought up a lot of the land in that area, and to even get to the one where George Stewart Robison is buried is difficult. My father owned a lot of that and a long time ago, but he sold it to a Mr. Lightsey, who sold it to a lumber company. My great-grandmother, Alice Dunbar Black Lafitte, owned it, and in her will, left 5 acres for public use at the Little Hell landing. The river boat captains named it that because it was on a curve and the river was very swift, which made landing difficult. THE ROBISON GRAVEYARD: "The old Robison graveyard is on the edge of the swamp near Millet station on the old C&WC Railway. About 1930 only two tombstones were still standing. The old Robison home stood "nearby."; From "The Dunbar Family of Barnwell County, South Carolina" by Elizabeth William DeHuff, 1950. The Children of George Heyward Robison and Elizabeth Ann Stewart 1) Elizabeth Robison was born about 1762, died 1792 in Charleston County, SC. She married William Dunbar, born 23 Feb 1752 in Belfast, Ireland, died 17 Nov 1798. I only know of two children: A) George Robison Dunbar, born 21 Sep 1783 Steel Creek Plantation, Orangeburg County, SC; died 27 Mar 1863 Barnwell County, SC. George married Mary Susan Fickling 5 Feb 1807 in Barnwell County, SC. Mary Susan was born 23 Feb 1787, died 12 Oct 1838, in Barnwell County, SC. B) Lucy Dunbar, born about 1790; died 1856. Lucy married Henry Young Patrick, but I know nothing about him. Notes About the Descendants of Elizabeth Robison & William Dunbar 1. Elizabeth ROBISON (b.Abt 1762 d.1792-Charleston County,SC) sp: William DUNBAR (b.23 Feb 1752-Belfast,Ireland d.17 Nov 1798) |-2. George Robison DUNBAR (b.21 Sep 1783-Steel Creek Plantation,Orangeburg County,SC d.27 Mar 1863-Barnwell District,SC) | sp: Mary Susan FICKLING (b.23 Feb 1787-Barnwell County,South Carolina m .5 Feb 1807 d.12 Oct 1838) | |-3. Allen Robison DUNBAR (b.17 Dec 1807 d.5 Feb 1871) | | sp: Laura HEXT/HEX | | |-4. George DUNBAR (b.Abt 1841) | | |-4. Anna DUNBAR (b.Abt 1839) | | |-4. Seabrook DUNBAR (b.Abt 1841) | | |-4. Sam DUNBAR (b.Abt 1843) | | |-4. Francis DUNBAR (b.Abt 1845) | | |-4. Judge William May DUNBAR Mayor of Augusta; C.S.A. (b.6 Apr 1846-Barnwell,SC d.7 Nov 1925, Augusta) | | | sp: Rebecca C. HOPKINS (b.Nov 1847-Augusta,Ga m.13 Nov 1866 d.14 Apr 1907-Augusta,Ga) | | | |-5. Laura May DUNBAR (b.27 Jun 1868-Augusta,Ga d.14 Jan 1906-Augusta,Ga) | | | | sp: Thomas HOPKINS (b.18 Apr 1867-Augusta,Ga d.16 Nov 1941-Birmingham,AL) | | | |-5. Rebecca Allen DUNBAR (b.Augusta,Ga) | | | |-5. Edwin Junius DUNBAR (died an infant) (b.1873/1874-Augusta,Ga d.May 1874-Augusta,Ga) | | | |-5. Clement Evans DUNBAR (b.25 Sep 1875-Augusta,Ga d.25 Sep 1938-Augusta,Ga) | | | | sp: Helen KNAPP (b.Circa 1886-PA m.Circa 1908) | | | | sp: Ethel P. | | | |-5. Frances "Frank" Marvin DUNBAR (b.17 Oct 1878-Augusta,Ga d.22 Jul 1929-Albany,NY) | | | | sp: Clara Eugenia EVE (m.6 Apr 1904 d.15 May 1908-Augusta,Richmond County,GA) | | | |-5. William Doughty DUNBAR (died a baby) (b.1880/1881-Augusta,Ga d.9 Nov 1881-Augusta,Ga) | | | |-5. Stiles Hopkins DUNBAR (b.27 Mar 1885-Augusta,Ga d.12 Oct 1921-Athens,Clarke Co.,GA) | | | | sp: Rebah E. PERKINS (b.12 Apr 1887-GA m.8 Jul 1905) | | | |-5. William M. (died an infant) DUNBAR (b.Apr 1888-Augusta,Ga d.Feb 1889-Augusta,Ga) | | | sp: Virginia TURNER-BENNETT (m.Aug 1913 d.7 Jan 1945-Augusta - Richmond County,GA) | | |-4. Susan Ellen DUNBAR (b.Abt 1848 d.1871) | | | sp: William Martin BELLINGER (b.Nov 1833 d.27 Mar 1898) | | | +-5. Mary Susan BELLINGER (b.17 Nov 1871 d.4 Aug 1899) | | | sp: James Bennett REYNOLDS | | +-4. Melvina DUNBAR (b.9 May 1851 d.15 Jun 1919) | | sp: William Martin BELLINGER (b.Nov 1833 d.27 Mar 1898) | | |-5. Laura Martin BELLINGER (b.9 Jul 1878) | | | sp: William Hatcher JONES | | |-5. Edmund Willis BELLINGER (b.14 Jan 1882 d.1 Sep 1962) | | +-5. Emily Sims BELLINGER (b.28 Nov 1889 d.1980) | | sp: John Schreiner REYNOLDS (b.17 May 1887 d.10 Oct 1918) | |-3. Maj. Frank (Francis Fickling) DUNBAR (b.28 Jul 1809 d.20 Jan 1870-Dunbar Plantation) | | sp: Lucy Eleanor SMITH (b.23 Jul 1807-Burke County,GA m.1833 d.17 Nov 1883) | | |-4. Elizabeth Mary DUNBAR (b.17 Aug 1835 d.12 Jan 1903) | | | sp: Reuben Bailey WILSON (b.Mar 1831-Barnwell District,SC) | | | |-5. Frank Dunbar WILSON (b.Bet 1853 & 1856) | | | |-5. James Jennings (2nd of the Name) WILSON | | | |-5. Benjamin Bowers WILSON | | | |-5. Ann Boyd WILSON (b.25 Jan 1859) | | | | sp: John Turner WILLIS | | | |-5. Clara Eugenia WILSON (b.22 Apr 1860) | | | |-5. Lewis Shuck WILSON (b.3 Nov 1861) | | | |-5. Martha Lafitte WILSON (b.3 Jan 1864) | | | |-5. Reuben Bailey (Jr.) WILSON (b.Abt 1865) | | | |-5. John Thomas WILSON (b.Abt 1867) | | | |-5. Lucy Eleanor WILSON (b.28 May 1870 d.23 Mar 1959-Augusta,Ga) | | | | sp: Robert (8th of the name) WALTON (b.5 Feb 1867 m.Abt 1891 d.9 Jan 1939-Augusta,Ga) | | | |-5. William Johnson WILSON (b.Aft 1870) | | | |-5. Joseph WILSON (b.19 Mar 1874) | | | |-5. Fred Lockhart WILSON (b.14 Feb 1876) | | | |-5. Elizabeth Mary WILSON (b.21 Apr 1878 d.Feb 1965-Augusta - Richmond County,GA) | | | | sp: G.R. CHANDLER | | | +-5. Julia WILSON (b.19 Mar 1880 d.17 Aug 1954-North Augusta,Aiken,South Carolina) | | | sp: Edward C. BARNES (b.1870) | | |-4. Clara Eves DUNBAR (b.1838) | | | sp: Ben F. BOWERS | | |-4. Judge Thomas Smith DUNBAR (b.1840 d.8 Jul 1912-Ellenton,S.C.) | | | sp: C. Eugenia BUSH (b.1849) | | | |-5. Thomas Smith "Dixie" (Jr.) DUNBAR (b.1882-Hattieville,SC d.7 May 1939-Ellenton,SC) | | | | sp: Caroline JONES (d.14 Apr 1953-Augusta,Richmond Co.,GA) | | | |-5. Jennie (Mrs. Finnell) DUNBAR | | | |-5. Florrie (Mrs. Buckingham) DUNBAR | | | | sp: E. R. BUCKINGHAM | | | |-5. Nellie DUNBAR (Mrs. Dunbar) | | | | sp: Allen Robison (2nd of the name) DUNBAR (b.Abt 1868 d.Jan 1937-Ellenton,S.C.) | | | |-5. Ethel (Mrs. W. E. Ashley) DUNBAR | | | | sp: William Elmore ASHLEY (d.25 Nov 1946-Ellenton,SC) | | | |-5. Clarice (Mrs. Bonner of Dallas, TX) DUNBAR | | | | sp: J. J. BONNER | | | +-5. Frank (son of Judge Thomas S) DUNBAR | | |-4. Capt. Frank (Francis Fickling, Jr.) DUNBAR (b.1842) | | | sp: Arabella BRADFORD | | | |-5. Randolph DUNBAR (b.Abt 1869) | | | |-5. Anna DUNBAR (b.Abt 1873) | | | |-5. Francis Fickling "Frank" (III) DUNBAR (b.Abt 1875 d.1960-Beech Island,SC) | | | | sp: Gertrude SIMKINS | | | |-5. Clara DUNBAR (b.Abt 1877-Beech Island,SC d.30 Nov 1960-Beech Island,SC) | | | | sp: Leroy Hampton SIMKINS | | | |-5. Paul Hammond DUNBAR (b.31 Jul 1879-Beech Island,Aiken,South Carolina d.18 Nov 1968-Augusta,Ga) | | | | sp: Henrietta EVE (b.22 Nov 1884-Belhaven Plantation,Beech Island,Aiken,SC m.30 Dec 1908 d.29 Sep 1923) | | | +-5. Arabella "Belle" DUNBAR (b.1886 d.Dec 1970-Beech Island,SC) | | |-4. Ann Eliza DUNBAR (b.1843 d.1919) | | | sp: Milledge Ardis ROUNDTREE (ROUNTREE) (b.2 Aug 1839 m.10 Apr 1867 d.21 May 1919) | | +-4. Lucy Minor DUNBAR (b.1844 d.20 Oct 1908-Augusta,Ga) | | sp: Charles Augustus BLACK (b.4 Nov 1843) | | |-5. Ann Eliza (Anna Lisa) BLACK (d.22 Aug 1954-Augusta,Ga) | | | sp: George Combs WALTON (b.6 Apr 1869-Augusta - Richmond County,GA d.Jun 1910-Augusta,GA) | | +-5. Zella BLACK (b.Abt 1882 d.Nov 1927-Charlotte,NC) | | sp: Charles Willis WISE of Augusta, GA | |-3. Elizabeth DUNBAR (b.2 Apr 1811 d.2 Jun 1832) | | sp: Leroy ALLEN | |-3. William Patrick DUNBAR (b.20 Feb 1813-Barnwell District,SC d.17 Apr 1890-Barnwell District,SC) | | sp: Eliza Gertrude MURPHY (b.5 Nov 1823-Barnwell District,SC d.1 Dec 1905) | | |-4. Margaret Ann DUNBAR | | | sp: Benjamin Brown KIRKLAND | | | |-5. Iola KIRKLAND | | | |-5. Whitefield Murphy KIRKLAND | | | |-5. William Robert KIRKLAND | | | |-5. Robert Lee KIRKLAND | | | |-5. Johnson Hagood KIRKLAND | | | |-5. Benjamin Brown (II) KIRKLAND | | | | sp: Evelyn E. CERUTI | | | |-5. George Dunbar KIRKLAND | | | |-5. John Bratton KIRKLAND | | | | sp: Mittie MEYERS | | | +-5. Elizabeth Hanson KIRKLAND | | | sp: Patrick Henry LESENE | | |-4. Mary Alice DUNBAR (b.5 Jul 1842 d.16 Aug 1905) | | | sp: Edward Junius (Jr) BLACK (b.23 Feb 1832 d.12 Jul 1871) | | | |-5. Paul DeLacy BLACK (b.28 Mar 1865 d.21 Oct 1949) | | | | sp: Pauline Barker KIRKLAND (b.17 Jun 1867 d.20 Feb 1938) | | | |-5. George Robison (2nd of the name) BLACK (b.1 Mar 1867 d.21 Mar 1902 or 11-21-1902) | | | | sp: Katie MORRALL | | | |-5. Elizabeth Hanson BLACK (b.1869-Eufaula,AL) | | | | sp: Benjamin W. PEEPLES | | | |-5. William Dunbar BLACK (b.1870) | | | | sp: Sarah E. BAILEY | | | sp: John Hancock LAFITTE | | | +-5. Alice LAFITTE | | | sp: William Yancey MILLER | | |-4. Carrie DUNBAR | | |-4. Capt. John Whitfield DUNBAR (b.1847) | | | sp: Eleanor TUTT (d.22 Apr 1914-Aiken County,S.C.) | | | |-5. Charles A. DUNBAR (b.1871) | | | |-5. William DUNBAR (b.1873) | | | |-5. Junius DUNBAR (b.1875) | | | |-5. John DUNBAR (b.1879) | | | |-5. Anna DUNBAR (b.1882 d.Mar 1958-Aiken,SC) | | | | sp: Charles Clinton DANIELS (m.27 Dec 1906) | | | |-5. Council Ashley DUNBAR (b.1884) | | | | sp: Caroline Maude DAVIS | | | |-5. Nonie DUNBAR (b.8 Feb 1890 d.27 Oct 1951-Charleston,S.C.) | | | | sp: Claris Ashley SMITH (m.1920 d.Jul 1951) | | | +-5. Gussie DUNBAR (b.1892) | | | sp: H. C. PECK of Birmingham, AL | | |-4. C. Ashley DUNBAR | | |-4. William DUNBAR | | |-4. George DUNBAR (b.1853 d.1901) | | |-4. Louise Caroline DUNBAR (b.1857 d.1903) | | |-4. Laura Hanson DUNBAR (b.1859 d.1928) | | | sp: BROWN | | | sp: Edward Spann HAMMOND C.S.A. * (b.1834 m.1882 d.1921) | | | +-5. Sen. James H. (II) HAMMOND (b.1885 d.1970) | | |-4. Charles Brown DUNBAR (b.1861) | | +-4. James DUNBAR (b.1867 d.1889) | |-3. Andrew Jackson DUNBAR (b.28 Sep 1815 d.7 Apr 1857) | |-3. Maj. George Robison (Jr.) DUNBAR C.S.A. (b.8 Jan 1818) | | sp: Olivia SANDERS | | |-4. Elizabeth "Bessie" DUNBAR (b.25 Aug 1867-Barnwell County,SC d.23 Aug 1934-Augusta-GA) | | | sp: Algernon Francis OTIS (d.9 Jan 1940-Augusta-Richmond County,GA) | | | |-5. Paul Dunbar OTIS (b.Cal 1890 d.11 Oct 1959) | | | | sp: Sadie REESE | | | |-5. Allen Robison OTIS (never married) (b.Cal 1896 d.5 Apr 1933-Augusta-Richmond County,GA) | | | |-5. George Dunbar OTIS (b.Cal 1891 d.22 Sep 1950-North Augusta,Aiken,South Carolina) | | | |-5. Algernon Francis (Jr.) OTIS (b.Cal 1900 d.8 Dec 1941-Augusta-Richmond County,GA) | | | +-5. Elizabeth Dunbar OTIS | | | sp: Martin Harris GAISSERT (d.13 Dec 1953-North Augusta,Aiken,South Carolina) | | |-4. Allen R. DUNBAR of Ellenton, SC | | |-4. J. B. (V?) DUNBAR of Mill Haven, GA | | |-4. Hon./Judge William M. DUNBAR of Augusta, GA | | | sp: Virginia TURNER (b.Abt 1855 d.7 Jan 1945-Augusta-Richmond County,GA) | | |-4. (Mrs. C.M. Turner) DUNBAR of Ellenton, SC | | |-4. (Mrs. T. A. Holland ) DUNBAR of Barnwell, SC | | |-4. Frank B. DUNBAR (died young-never maried) (d.18 Dec 1908-Los Angeles,CA) | | +-4. Clara DUNBAR (b.Cal 1876 d.22 Apr 1928) | | sp: Charles MEYER/MYER | |-3. Samuel DUNBAR (b.21 Jun 1820 d.21 May 1896) | | sp: Katherine JOHNSON (m.1844) | | +-4. Sallie A. DUNBAR (b.1845) | | sp: Dr. George W. MORRELL (m.1866) | | +-5. Phoebe F. MORRELL | |-3. Lucy Ann DUNBAR (b.15 Aug 1822-South Carolina d.8 Jun 1909-Augusta,Richmond Co.,GA) | | sp: Council J. ASHLEY (b.1824-Barnwell County,South Carolina m.1841 d.1885-Barnwell County,SC) | | |-4. Lawrence Alonza ASHLEY (b.1843 d.Oct 1918-Newberry,SC) | | | sp: Annie Virginia LUCAS (b.Abt 1838 d.18 Jan 1924-Chester,SC) | | | |-5. Minnie L. ASHLEY (b.27 Apr 1862) | | | |-5. Council Black ASHLEY (b.Abt 1865) | | | |-5. Annie Laurie ASHLEY (b.Abt 1867) | | | |-5. Emma Lucas ASHLEY (b.Abt 1869) | | | |-5. Kate Dunbar ASHLEY (b.Abt 1871) | | | |-5. Georgia Morrall ASHLEY (b.Abt 1876) | | | | sp: James Martin LATHAN | | | +-5. Lucille ASHLEY | | | sp: William Ernest MCGEE/MCGHEE (m.Nov 1909) | | +-4. Mary C. ASHLEY (b.9 May 1846 d.16 Feb 1890) | | sp: Lucius Ashley BUSH (b.3 Sep 1843 m.1864) | | |-5. Frank D. BUSH (b.1865 d.Dec 1953-Ellenton,SC) | | | sp: Mamie BAILEY | | | sp: Lulie TURNER | | |-5. James "Crossland" BUSH (b.16 Dec 1865) | | | sp: Mary DICKS (b.Abt 1884-Aiken County,S.C. m.Nov 1900 d.Sep 1960-Waltersboro,SC) | | |-5. Charles W. BUSH (b.10 Mar 1872) | | |-5. Minnie Russell BUSH (b.25 Jan 1877) | | | sp: (Mr.) BAILEY | | +-5. Davis "Council" BUSH (b.1883 d.Jul 1953-Barnwell County,South Carolina) | | sp: Josie BAILEY | |-3. Mary DUNBAR (b.28 Apr 1825 d.1877) | | sp: James Welcome BOYD | +-3. Sarah Richardson DUNBAR (b.2 Dec 1828) +-2. Lucy DUNBAR (b.Abt 1790 d.1856) sp: Henry Young PATRICK |-3. Lucy Laura PATRICK +-3. Caroline PATRICK (b.1814 d.1851) sp: William Washington GARVIN (b.Abt 1811 d.Abt 1864) |-4. Laura Ann GARVIN |-4. Patrick Govan GARVIN |-4. William Henry GARVIN |-4. Joseph Wheeler GARVIN +-4. Richard Kirkland GARVIN

My first reaction when I saw this list of SNPs is hey, the number of them rings a bell - like the so-called 'Mayo' SNPs? http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DNA-R1B1C7/2013-11/1384128011 Sound familiar? Anyway I checked them against various other tables and did raw position checks on myself, Ron Donaldson and the Ewing BigY sample to cover the major areas and we are all definitely negative for the whole lot (CTS10488 and Z70 aren't in the Ewing sequencing). As for David's idea that Howle and Degnen are actually lower down the tree, I do go to great lengths to check for such things as far as I am able, including crosschecking against the full Chromo2 table. I think we can all but rule it out. Iain

If your C2 results show you as terminal at S7073, that gives enormous odds in your favor for being derived for FGC4077, FGC4078 and FGC4087 when you get around to testing them. I would just add that the different branches of M222 are in many respects quite similar, so close GD to a few members of one subhaplogroup is not necessarily an indication that you won't ultimately be placed by SNPs in a different group. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Margaret and Geoff Melloy Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 7:29 AM To: Dna-r1b1c7; Dna-r1b1c7 Subject: [R-M222] Waiting 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 ------------------------------- 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

David, I'm sure they have already heard from other admins about weaknesses in the newly expanded tree. I will be adding my voice to the chorus later today after further review of the positive individuals. CTS12173 is probably the most questionable new SNP in any of the projects that I am affiliated with. I will specifically mention your case, so there is no need for you to write if you don't want to bother. 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 7:06 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 I now understand that the appearance of CTS12173 in my entry into Mike¹s haplogroup file originated with ftDNA. Is there any point in informing ftDNA about their misrepresentation of our SNPs and calling them out for their carelessness, or are you and other administrators already doing that? 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

I'd be wary of CTS12173 not only just it show up in Haplogroup I, but it also show sup in a R1b-DF41+ man. DF41 of course is parallel to DF49 under L21. If it only arose twice (Say due to randomess) in Haplogroup I and then once in M222 it would be so bad, but to arise twice under DF13 makes me think it's not in a particularly stable part area of the Y-Chromosome. I now have the ridiculous situation where a DF41+ (and CTS2501+) confirmed man is been given a M222 "long form" haplogroup designation! -Paul (DF41+) On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:32 AM, David Wilson <dcw1000@live.com> wrote: > Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released > haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt > that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The > individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not have > transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be members > of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are > not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project are: > > > > > PF1909 > > > PF3988 > > > F3024 > > > M226 > > > F499 > > > CTS8580 > > > CTS3771 > > > CTS10488 > > > F1400 > > > CTS9501 > > > PF910 > > > PF7301 > > > F3637 > > > CTS6 > > > F1636 > > > CTS11548 > > > F1732 > > > F1033 > > > > > > > The six other SNPs and the individuals who are derived for them are as > follows: > > > > > CTS8002 > > Grant > > 76350 > > > PF3292 > > Gwinn > > 115365 > > > F3952 > > Mitchell > > N10119 > > > Z70 > > DePew > > N113849 > > > " > > Kelleher > > N113900 > > > CTS12173 > > Morrow > > 246349 > > > " > > Dexter > > 164044 > > > " > > Degnen > > 88905 > > > " > > Desertspring > > N55831 > > > " > > Braswell > > 196682 > > > " > > MacLennan > > 2278911 > > > " > > Davitt > > 251441 > > > " > > Haslett > > N8220 > > > " > > Mitchell > > N10119 > > > " > > Farrell > > N112356 > > > " > > Crellin > > 199859 > > > PF2028 > > Daugherty > > 73633 > > > " > > Donnelly > > 324585 > > > > > > > Grant has not ordered any of the major a la carte SNPs below M222, so we > cannot tell where CTS8002 may lie in the tree. > > > > Gwinn is DF85-/DF97-, but he is carried as S660+ on Iain Kennedy's evolving > M222 tree. Thus PF3292 lies below S660/S659/DF105. > > > > F3952 is already located on Iain's M222 tree. A McBride who is not a member > of the R-M222 Project has tested positive for this SNP along with Mitchell. > > > > DePew is DF85- and DF105+. Thus Z70 lies below S550/S659/DF105. Kelleher > has > not tested any SNPs outside of the Geno2 process. > > > > CTS12173 is a potentially useful SNP that must be viewed with caution. As > others have pointed out today, the position is derived in different major > branches of the ChrY tree, and it may come and go within even a relatively > compact branch like R=M222 and its synonyms. Still, I tend to think that if > the marker can be stable for at least a few generations, it could be useful > as a private or semi-private SNP. Of the 11 R-M222 Project members who are > positive for this SNP, Morrow, Desertspring, Braswell, Haslett, and Crellin > have not tested major structural SNPs below M222; Geno2 is their only > source > of downstream classification. Of the six others, Dexter is positive for > S7073 and appears to belong to the FGC4077/4078 branch. Degnen, as Iain > reported earlier, is positive for A259 and A260. This suggests that > CTS12173 > is equivalent to those SNPs or at least lies in their vicinity. But > MacLennan, who is positive for S7814 and F1265, is also positive for > CTS12173. This is illogical unless Howle and Degnen are also to be > positioned below S588 (which may be the case: BigY is weak on the S588 > branch). Davitt, however, is DF97+, which is completely inconsistent with > other results. The same Mitchell who is F3952+ is also positive for > CTS12173, which again points toward the S588 branch. Farrell has tested > DF85-, which leaves both S660 and S588 open for associations. The picture > is > muddy and this SNP should perhaps be considered ambiguous. > > > > Daugherty is negative for DF86 and DF97, which pushes PF2028 up to the S660 > level or on a collateral branch. Donnelly has done no SNP testing outside > of > the Geno2 chip. > > > > David Wilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

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

Dear David, There seems to be a discrepancy about my being derived as CTS12173+. Neither my Chromo 2 genetic signature, my raw file download nor my Geno 2 test record any CTS12173 test result for me. Nevertheless, Mike¹s March 7 Haplotypes file shows me as CTS12173+. I am, however derived for CTS12773 GG positive (CTS12773+). Could there be a typo in the transfer to Mike¹s file. Where did you find me as CTS12173+? David MacLennan 227811 On 2014-04-25, 9:32 PM, "David Wilson" <dcw1000@live.com> wrote: >Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released >haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt >that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The >individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not >have >transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be >members >of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are >not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project >are: > > > > >PF1909 > > >PF3988 > > >F3024 > > >M226 > > >F499 > > >CTS8580 > > >CTS3771 > > >CTS10488 > > >F1400 > > >CTS9501 > > >PF910 > > >PF7301 > > >F3637 > > >CTS6 > > >F1636 > > >CTS11548 > > >F1732 > > >F1033 > > > > > > >The six other SNPs and the individuals who are derived for them are as >follows: > > > > >CTS8002 > >Grant > >76350 > > >PF3292 > >Gwinn > >115365 > > >F3952 > >Mitchell > >N10119 > > >Z70 > >DePew > >N113849 > > >" > >Kelleher > >N113900 > > >CTS12173 > >Morrow > >246349 > > >" > >Dexter > >164044 > > >" > >Degnen > >88905 > > >" > >Desertspring > >N55831 > > >" > >Braswell > >196682 > > >" > >MacLennan > >2278911 > > >" > >Davitt > >251441 > > >" > >Haslett > >N8220 > > >" > >Mitchell > >N10119 > > >" > >Farrell > >N112356 > > >" > >Crellin > >199859 > > >PF2028 > >Daugherty > >73633 > > >" > >Donnelly > >324585 > > > > > > >Grant has not ordered any of the major a la carte SNPs below M222, so we >cannot tell where CTS8002 may lie in the tree. > > > >Gwinn is DF85-/DF97-, but he is carried as S660+ on Iain Kennedy's >evolving >M222 tree. Thus PF3292 lies below S660/S659/DF105. > > > >F3952 is already located on Iain's M222 tree. A McBride who is not a >member >of the R-M222 Project has tested positive for this SNP along with >Mitchell. > > > >DePew is DF85- and DF105+. Thus Z70 lies below S550/S659/DF105. Kelleher >has >not tested any SNPs outside of the Geno2 process. > > > >CTS12173 is a potentially useful SNP that must be viewed with caution. As >others have pointed out today, the position is derived in different major >branches of the ChrY tree, and it may come and go within even a relatively >compact branch like R=M222 and its synonyms. Still, I tend to think that >if >the marker can be stable for at least a few generations, it could be >useful >as a private or semi-private SNP. Of the 11 R-M222 Project members who are >positive for this SNP, Morrow, Desertspring, Braswell, Haslett, and >Crellin >have not tested major structural SNPs below M222; Geno2 is their only >source >of downstream classification. Of the six others, Dexter is positive for >S7073 and appears to belong to the FGC4077/4078 branch. Degnen, as Iain >reported earlier, is positive for A259 and A260. This suggests that >CTS12173 >is equivalent to those SNPs or at least lies in their vicinity. But >MacLennan, who is positive for S7814 and F1265, is also positive for >CTS12173. This is illogical unless Howle and Degnen are also to be >positioned below S588 (which may be the case: BigY is weak on the S588 >branch). Davitt, however, is DF97+, which is completely inconsistent with >other results. The same Mitchell who is F3952+ is also positive for >CTS12173, which again points toward the S588 branch. Farrell has tested >DF85-, which leaves both S660 and S588 open for associations. The picture >is >muddy and this SNP should perhaps be considered ambiguous. > > > >Daugherty is negative for DF86 and DF97, which pushes PF2028 up to the >S660 >level or on a collateral branch. Donnelly has done no SNP testing outside >of >the Geno2 chip. > > > >David Wilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------- >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 agree with Paul... How do they construe hopping from DF41? That's crazy. I think that is one to take to Mittleman...with a back up to Janine Cloud and Elise what is her name that is doing the webinars. On 4/26/2014 1:43 AM, Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ wrote: > I'd be wary of CTS12173 not only just it show up in Haplogroup I, but it > also show sup in a R1b-DF41+ man. DF41 of course is parallel to DF49 under > L21. If it only arose twice (Say due to randomess) in Haplogroup I and then > once in M222 it would be so bad, but to arise twice under DF13 makes me > think it's not in a particularly stable part area of the Y-Chromosome. > > I now have the ridiculous situation where a DF41+ (and CTS2501+) confirmed > man is been given a M222 "long form" haplogroup designation! > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > >

Dear David, Thanks for doing this. I began it earlier today after throwing my fit and was getting back in after dinner when this came in. One of the first ones I looked at was CTS8002; I hadn't found where Grant was derived. This SNP was on Chromo2 and every M222 file I saw was negative for it; I checked the CZ2000 file that includes members from our project among others as well as fellows from the British Isles; and all M222 were ancestral (negative) in that file, too. It makes me question Grant's result. It seems that this tree was based on Geno2 and the cut off date for cumulative SNP result information was quite some time ago. I really lost my faith that it was redeemable when I saw in multiple well SNPd individuals recommendations to test SNPs that these individuals had already tested negative for or couldn't possibly test positive for because the recommendation made no phylogenetic sense. It also seems that some SNPs they don't have a clue as to where they phylogenetically fit on the tree and just plunked them in. I sincerely hope that we don't waste any more time on it beyond waiving people off if there are questions. Personally, I am disregarding this tree; that shouldn't be much issue for anyone, really as we've been disregarding FTDNA's haplotree for years because it was out of date--even up-dated, it is still out of date seriously and has issues IMO. The L21 draft tree is more up to date even if it is a draft, at least it makes sense; the ISOGG tree seems more accurate than the FTDNA New Tree Roll out. All the haplogroups are working with the BIGY Data and in the process of integrating it with FGC results and Chromo2 results; I see very little value of this tree that seems to have SNPs traveling across the haplogroups, some maybe of private status, some as in CTS8002 as reported in Grant may be a bad call (and Geno2 was full of those if I remember correctly), etc. BTW, I saw some chatter earlier today that Dr. Michael Hammer will no longer concern himself with the Y chromosome stuff and is moving into medical--disease research. How accurate the chatter is, I don't know, but that is the chatter. Susan On 4/25/2014 9:32 PM, David Wilson wrote: > Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released > haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt > that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The > individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not have > transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be members > of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are > not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project are: > >

Addressing the few preceding posts in a single reply: David M: One of the tools available to project administrators is a page that lists all project members who have taken any SNP tests and the results for those tests. I did repeated searches for the new SNPs on the tree and recorded what I found. I also followed the link to your individual SNP testing record and checked that. FTDNA now classifies you as R-CTS12173 on your SNP/Haplotree page. Paul and Susan: Yes, CTS12173 is wonky and should for the moment be regarded with suspicion. But I am willing to think it could possibly of some benefit if further study can show that it is derived in a number of different branches in a consistent way. I think it is probably one of those wobblers that Jim Wilson found to behave "more like STRs" before he dismissed them from consideration in his Chromo2 results. I'm keeping an open mind. I don't completely trust the singleton CTS8002 result for Grant, which could be either a false positive or a personal mutation. If two or three more M222 people turn up with the SNP, that would restore my interest in it. I agree FTDNA needs to hear about the inconsistent results, in particular the nonsensical result that Paul mentioned in which a DF41 individual is misclassified based on erroneous valuation of a variable SNP. But I also support the point Mike W made earlier about the current tree being a work in progress that reflects only the massaged Geno2 data without yet including all the additional SNPs that have been independently identified in the last several months. If FTDNA can test a SNP on an a la carte basis, I expect it will be added to the tree in a separate data merge. It is true that I was profoundly disappointed by my first glance at the tree several hours ago, but since then I have talked myself into a wait and see attitude. I believe the suggested PF3292 and Z70 placements are justifiable, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. David Wilson ------------------------------- 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

Paul, Thanks for this useful post. Your mention of CTS12173 rang a bell and I looked again at the haplotree and my FTDNA matches. I have two 25 marker matches (descended from the same individual) who are now categorized as R1b1a1a1a1a1b1i on the basis of this SNP. It is marked 'remove' on my list of testing options beneath M222; I thought FTDNA were not recommending the test for this SNP, but I proceeded as if to order and discovered that the situation was exactly the opposite - it was in fact a pre-selected option for testing! It looks like FTDNA are recommending testing this one SNP on the basis of my two 25 marker matches, the only ones who are showing a result on the new SNPs. I'll keep my credit card in my wallet for the time being! Regards, Paul McIlveen. ________________________________ From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> To: Paul McIlveen <paulmcilveen@btinternet.com>; "dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com" <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [R-M222] FTDNA Haplotree It seems to be based purely on Geno 2.0 tree. I already found a serious clanger where a DF41+ man (who is CTS2501+) has been classes as been under M222 because he also happens to be CTS12173. It's apparent that's not a reliable SNP, when I look in SNP report for Ireland yDNA Project I can see that there are men in Haplogroup I who are CTS12173+ (from Geno 2.0 testing). It's ridiculous update!! -Paul (DF41+) (Admin Ireland yDNA Project) (Admin R-DF41 & Subclades Project) On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Paul McIlveen <paulmcilveen@btinternet.com> wrote: Folks, > >I've just looked at FTDNA's new haplotree - it does not include downstream SNPs like DF105, DF85 or DF97. I have been offered 23 new SNPs for individual testing at $31.20 a time, so that I can 'better understand' my paternal lineage. I have already had negative results on six of these from Chromo2, but that still leaves seventeen available! Any thoughts about what's going on? > >Paul McIlveen. > >------------------------------- >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 >

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

I apologize for the shredded table in that last post. I thought I had done the stuff that would let it hold together. Most of what I wanted to show should be obvious, but the ditto mark (double quotation, if you will) is intended to represent another instance of the last named previous SNP. David W.

Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not have transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be members of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project are: PF1909 PF3988 F3024 M226 F499 CTS8580 CTS3771 CTS10488 F1400 CTS9501 PF910 PF7301 F3637 CTS6 F1636 CTS11548 F1732 F1033 The six other SNPs and the individuals who are derived for them are as follows: CTS8002 Grant 76350 PF3292 Gwinn 115365 F3952 Mitchell N10119 Z70 DePew N113849 " Kelleher N113900 CTS12173 Morrow 246349 " Dexter 164044 " Degnen 88905 " Desertspring N55831 " Braswell 196682 " MacLennan 2278911 " Davitt 251441 " Haslett N8220 " Mitchell N10119 " Farrell N112356 " Crellin 199859 PF2028 Daugherty 73633 " Donnelly 324585 Grant has not ordered any of the major a la carte SNPs below M222, so we cannot tell where CTS8002 may lie in the tree. Gwinn is DF85-/DF97-, but he is carried as S660+ on Iain Kennedy's evolving M222 tree. Thus PF3292 lies below S660/S659/DF105. F3952 is already located on Iain's M222 tree. A McBride who is not a member of the R-M222 Project has tested positive for this SNP along with Mitchell. DePew is DF85- and DF105+. Thus Z70 lies below S550/S659/DF105. Kelleher has not tested any SNPs outside of the Geno2 process. CTS12173 is a potentially useful SNP that must be viewed with caution. As others have pointed out today, the position is derived in different major branches of the ChrY tree, and it may come and go within even a relatively compact branch like R=M222 and its synonyms. Still, I tend to think that if the marker can be stable for at least a few generations, it could be useful as a private or semi-private SNP. Of the 11 R-M222 Project members who are positive for this SNP, Morrow, Desertspring, Braswell, Haslett, and Crellin have not tested major structural SNPs below M222; Geno2 is their only source of downstream classification. Of the six others, Dexter is positive for S7073 and appears to belong to the FGC4077/4078 branch. Degnen, as Iain reported earlier, is positive for A259 and A260. This suggests that CTS12173 is equivalent to those SNPs or at least lies in their vicinity. But MacLennan, who is positive for S7814 and F1265, is also positive for CTS12173. This is illogical unless Howle and Degnen are also to be positioned below S588 (which may be the case: BigY is weak on the S588 branch). Davitt, however, is DF97+, which is completely inconsistent with other results. The same Mitchell who is F3952+ is also positive for CTS12173, which again points toward the S588 branch. Farrell has tested DF85-, which leaves both S660 and S588 open for associations. The picture is muddy and this SNP should perhaps be considered ambiguous. Daugherty is negative for DF86 and DF97, which pushes PF2028 up to the S660 level or on a collateral branch. Donnelly has done no SNP testing outside of the Geno2 chip. David Wilson

Presumably all the new terminal snps are downstream of df 85 , df 97 df ,105 ,s588 etc and FTDNA will eventually get round to informing us which snps are downstream from which? Sent from my iPhone