Another question with way are we swimming up stream or down stream? Going back or forward? In a message dated 11/27/2013 11:53:10 A.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Brendan, I absolutely agree with you. With estimates being as they are, 75% of R-M222 should test out negative for df85, hence regardless of the df85+ results, there is yet a huge sector of R-222 who are in search of their Y history. Chromo2 presently is the only vehicle to test ID'd down stream SNPs not found elsewhere. We do not know what BigY will turn up, and it will be awhile before those assessments will reveal how significant of a venture it may be. Additionally the price of that is about to go up significantly. If those who believe that this expense is too much (and it is hefty), sequencing with other vendors is significantly more. Susan Hedeen On 11/27/2013 3:13 PM, B. Davitt wrote: > Doug, > Yes I do think we should take advantage of the Chromo2 test but that is my > opinion and I don't claim to be an expert. I think the Chromo2 would be > very useful to those who are DF85 neg. because it would help define all the > other branches of M222. But this is my opinion. I personally think that for > the $ Chromo2 is the best option right now but after Big Y results start > coming in that might all change. > Brenden > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Brenden, Yeah, technology changes. But I agree with you in that the Chromo2 test specializes in SNP testing, the hot item at this moment. And hey, I am DF85 negative! Doug On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, B. Davitt <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug, > Yes I do think we should take advantage of the Chromo2 test but that is my > opinion and I don't claim to be an expert. I think the Chromo2 would be > very useful to those who are DF85 neg. because it would help define all the > other branches of M222. But this is my opinion. I personally think that for > the $ Chromo2 is the best option right now but after Big Y results start > coming in that might all change. > Brenden > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Brenden, Yeah, I got that same confusing message. And so now what do I do? It looks like we should all get on with this window of opportunity before it closes. Doug On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:26 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > ------Messaggio originale------ > Da: B. Davitt > Mittente: [email protected] > A: [email protected] > Rispondi a: [email protected] > Oggetto: [R-M222] Question > Inviato: 27 nov 2013 14:19 > > I read about this on another forum last week see: > > http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1403-L21-Chromo2-tracking-and-results/page2 > . > All that was said is that liquids could no longer be shipped from The > Republic of Ireland to the British mainland. It doesn't apply to the U.S. > (except in certain states I guess) I returned my kit earlier this month and > they received it on the 11th. > Brenden > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Doug, Yes I do think we should take advantage of the Chromo2 test but that is my opinion and I don't claim to be an expert. I think the Chromo2 would be very useful to those who are DF85 neg. because it would help define all the other branches of M222. But this is my opinion. I personally think that for the $ Chromo2 is the best option right now but after Big Y results start coming in that might all change. Brenden

Hi Sandy, I am aware that New York state in the US disallows saliva samples to be sent through the mail, such that NY state residents must go to surrounding states to send their samples. But another member here said that such samples are now no longer accepted in the UK. I am about to place an order with ScotlandsDNA in the UK which requires such saliva samples, and so that possible restriction got my attention. Doug On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Alexander Paterson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > First I've ever heard of it but I've been occupies with other things > recently. I seriously doubt it though. > > Sandy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of tuulen > Sent: 21 November 2013 05:06 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Question > > Are saliva samples no longer allowed to be flown/shipped the the UK? > > I am about to submit to ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test, but that involves a > saliva sample. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Haplotypes.zip > Haplotype Data for R1b-L21 All confirmed & suspected R1b-L21 > haplotypes with all subclades including M222, DF49, L513, DF21, Z251, > Z253, Z255, L226, CTS4466, etc. This is on the AllHts tab. The data > comes from public FTDNA project pages, Ysearch, some from posters > blogging the latest results. The 111 STR haplotypes are on the ExtHts > tab. Informational Clades/Varieties, Rates and Locations > tab/worksheets are also included. - M.W. [file is in MS Excel 2010 > .xlsm format, can be read by OpenOffice] > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-L21_Haplotypes.zip

I read about this on another forum last week see: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1403-L21-Chromo2-tracking-and-results/page2. All that was said is that liquids could no longer be shipped from The Republic of Ireland to the British mainland. It doesn't apply to the U.S. (except in certain states I guess) I returned my kit earlier this month and they received it on the 11th. Brenden

Sandy, Someone has probably answered this for you but I didn't look 'cause I was happy you asked me a question I could answer ;-) That is Mike's terminology for his R1b-L21 "big" tree he keeps up with all the kits under L21+.......... I will post a link to same if one doesn't show up right away. Linda > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:35:58 -0000 > From: "Alexander Paterson" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Chromo2 Tests Pending Check List > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Linda, > > I'm not familiar with the reference > > 49-2329222-48714 > > What does it mean? > > Sandy >

This is to follow up on further messages from Linda and Doug, which I do appreciate very much. Doug, I did sign up to the Cannon Surname Project and am in the first group there with a number of matches who also trace back by documentary genealogy to my ancestor John Cannon (1712-1763), who was born in Dover, Kent, England (to the best of my knowledge).  I just got notice today of a new match at 67-markers, but whose surname is Milliken.  (Another of my group 1 other-surname matches is David Wilson.) Based on a message to someone else in the DNA-Newbie Yahoo group I went to semargl.me and found some numbers but have not yet been able to check those against the Cannon Surname Project subjects due to traveling to be with my mother and sister for Thanksgiving. I still need to sign up with ysearch.org and also smgf.org (sp? -- the Sorenson website). Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA Doug wrote: "Trust me on this one, please, but any and all of your genetic testing results can and will be appreciated by no less than several members of this M222 group. "However, beyond whatever information FTDNA could supply you with, there also are a number of other strategies which could be employed to further refine your exploration. "To begin with, have you searched for a Cannon family project available at FTDNA? "And then there are a number of other strategies and tricks, too."

Ed, Trust me on this one, please, but any and all of your genetic testing results can and will be appreciated by no less than several members of this M222 group. However, beyond whatever information FTDNA could supply you with, there also are a number of other strategies which could be employed to further refine your exploration. To begin with, have you searched for a Cannon family project available at FTDNA? And then there are a number of other strategies and tricks, too. Best, Doug On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Ed Cannon <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Iain, Susan, and Doug very much for your suggestions about > further > testing. Part of my uncertainty is what my DNA might offer in terms of > useful > data. My primary reason for doing DNA tests has been simply to try to > break > through brick walls in my ancestry. > > I appreciate the discussion, information, and insights provided by this > group. > > Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sandy, ISOGG uses this terminology too. I think the correct full term is "phylogenetically equivalent" and this is used for situations where two physically different SNPs marked the same branch on the Y DNA tree. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_Glossary.html This is different from what ISOGG calls a synonym. That would be a case where two different SNP labels identify the exact same physical SNP. In these cases, on their tree they use a slash ("/") between SNP labels that are synonyms. Regards, Mike W On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Paterson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Iain, > > Could you try and clarify something, namely the word 'equivalent'. > > Jim's original tree was titled 'M222 and ~ 24 equivalents'. As a > mathematician, I have to say that 'equivalent' means 'is the same as'. So > S675 is equivalent to DF85. To say that M222 is equivalent to for example > S675 seems like a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps we need to know what > 'phylogenically equivalent' means? > > Best, > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iain Kennedy > Sent: 19 November 2013 18:21 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > List > > I have several updates to the M222 tree this evening. Jim Wilson has > provided a list of SNPs which he considers phylogenetically equivalent to > M222 and are (mostly) on the Chromo2 chip. As the list is now too long to > force into a personal name in my tree I have also posted the raw tree > diagram he sent me which primarily shows the top level above and below, so > it is not a replacement for the whole earlier diagram. > > There are three features in his new diagram: > 1. What appears to be a new hg between S474/DF49 and S193/DF23 called S476 > which is not on the ISOGG tree. > 2. The new list of M222 equivalents > 3. A new SNP below M222 called S7073. > > I have moved everything at the root of M222 below S7073 but having not seen > Steve Lominac's raw file yet I can't confirm that he is positive for it. I > am as is Rob McBride too of course. > > The other change to the diagram, which Rob McBride spotted and neither Jim > nor I did is that he is positive for F3952, one of the SNPs we got off Geno > 2.0 which previously only a Mitchell was positive for. I have double > checked > with Jim and he reviewed the raw genotype and agrees with this placement. > My > checking procedures have been amended accordingly and I have added Mitchell > to the diagram too. > > Upper tree update: > > http://www.kennedydna.com/S474.jpg > > Main tree from M222: > > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

94854.....Gillespie 36712.....O'Shaughnessy

Davitt #251441 DF97+

171920....J D McGee.....DF85+

29139....Dougherty....ordered DF85 and DF97 73271....L Dill....DF85+

I suppose there must be a Sweet Spot for each marker in the y chromosome of each modern family, otherwise there would be just one 'universal sweet spot' that applied to everyone. If that were so, the distinction between various clades would be less apparent than is actually observed. The y chromosome is more like a ball of string than an extended optic fibre. Therefore some markers are buried deeply within, surrounded by companion markers; some by its immediate neighbours on the chromosome, others in addition by markers lying on more distant parts, yet others on the outside by proximity to part of its companion x chromosome. This 3-Dimensionality of the chromosome will presumably make markers on the outside more vulnerable to mutation by a stray cosmic ray. It seems possible that the reversion towards that 'family level' sweet spot could be influenced by the prevailing "shape" of adjacent markers in the chain— each itself independently subject to plus/minus mutation and influenced by the shape of its 3-D companions. If this were indeed the case, then perhaps comparisons should be based, at least, on triplets of adjacent markers, rather than just individual markers. Apologies if this argument makes life more complicated for some. I guess that's what science is about. M. On 25 Nov 2013, at 16:38, Susan Hedeen wrote: > It could be a valid conjecture, Robert. The question is, of course, > if > the sweet spot is pertinent here--that is, just what is it for DYS 460 > within the different sub-clades of R-M222, and which repeat value > (either 11 or 12) most closely represents what the sweet spot is. > > I mention the M222+ sub-clades. They are not fully defined yet, but > we > now know that they exist, and there well may be haplotype differences > among them. We do not yet know. > > Also of interest in your observation is the "modal" business. Your > remarks are IMO important to illustrate that modals are indeed a > constructed haplotype based on majority rule averages of the results > tested in addition to the fact that a modal can and will change as > more > results are added. > > Do not misunderstand me, modals are useful; however we often > misunderstand their utility and what they actually represent. > Additionally, as clearly noted previously, within these O'D results, > there are + and - df85 men all who fall within both the M222+ modal > and > the O'D modal values. > > It is the combination of testing, assessment, historical information > and > well documented genealogies in combination which will bring us the > best > clarity we may achieve...and at that there are aspects of all of this > which will remain theoretical and perhaps unknown or without > demonstration. Susan Hedeen > > On 11/25/2013 11:08 AM, Robert Doherty wrote: >> The Doherty modal (that John McLaughlin posted) matches the O'Niall >> modal except at three STRs. >> >> DYS458 Doherty = 18, O'Niall = 17 >> DYS460 Doherty = 12, O'Niall = 11 >> YCAII Doherty = 19-22, O'Niall = 19-23 >> >> Among the Doherty Surname Group participants in subgroup 1 (those >> who are M222 and have a Doherty surname - all variants), there are >> an equal number who have DYS460 = 11 and DYS460 = 12. Therefore >> the modal for this subgroup swings back and forth as participants >> are added to this sub group. >> >> Currently more M222 Dohertys have DYS460 = 11 than DYS460 = 12. >> But this may switch when the next M222 Doherty participant joins. >> >> While this may be not the same as the "sweet spot" concept where >> the STR value for an individual family line mutates back to a >> specific value, it seems this group is behaving this way. >> >> Bob Doherty >> Sent from my iPad >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] >> 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 [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

And Len replied: Smile when you say that podnuh! 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100 00100001 :-) On 11/25/2013 10:27 AM, Malcolm McClure wrote: > I suppose there must be a Sweet Spot for each marker in the y > chromosome of each modern family, otherwise there would be just one > 'universal sweet spot' that applied to everyone. If that were so, the > distinction between various clades would be less apparent than is > actually observed. > The y chromosome is more like a ball of string than an extended optic > fibre. Therefore some markers are buried deeply within, surrounded by > companion markers; some by its immediate neighbours on the chromosome, > others in addition by markers lying on more distant parts, yet others > on the outside by proximity to part of its companion x chromosome. > This 3-Dimensionality of the chromosome will presumably make markers > on the outside more vulnerable to mutation by a stray cosmic ray. > It seems possible that the reversion towards that 'family level' > sweet spot could be influenced by the prevailing "shape" of adjacent > markers in the chain— each itself independently subject to plus/minus > mutation and influenced by the shape of its 3-D companions. If this > were indeed the case, then perhaps comparisons should be based, at > least, on triplets of adjacent markers, rather than just individual > markers. > > Apologies if this argument makes life more complicated for some. I > guess that's what science is about. > > M. >

It could be a valid conjecture, Robert. The question is, of course, if the sweet spot is pertinent here--that is, just what is it for DYS 460 within the different sub-clades of R-M222, and which repeat value (either 11 or 12) most closely represents what the sweet spot is. I mention the M222+ sub-clades. They are not fully defined yet, but we now know that they exist, and there well may be haplotype differences among them. We do not yet know. Also of interest in your observation is the "modal" business. Your remarks are IMO important to illustrate that modals are indeed a constructed haplotype based on majority rule averages of the results tested in addition to the fact that a modal can and will change as more results are added. Do not misunderstand me, modals are useful; however we often misunderstand their utility and what they actually represent. Additionally, as clearly noted previously, within these O'D results, there are + and - df85 men all who fall within both the M222+ modal and the O'D modal values. It is the combination of testing, assessment, historical information and well documented genealogies in combination which will bring us the best clarity we may achieve...and at that there are aspects of all of this which will remain theoretical and perhaps unknown or without demonstration. Susan Hedeen On 11/25/2013 11:08 AM, Robert Doherty wrote: > The Doherty modal (that John McLaughlin posted) matches the O'Niall modal except at three STRs. > > DYS458 Doherty = 18, O'Niall = 17 > DYS460 Doherty = 12, O'Niall = 11 > YCAII Doherty = 19-22, O'Niall = 19-23 > > Among the Doherty Surname Group participants in subgroup 1 (those who are M222 and have a Doherty surname - all variants), there are an equal number who have DYS460 = 11 and DYS460 = 12. Therefore the modal for this subgroup swings back and forth as participants are added to this sub group. > > Currently more M222 Dohertys have DYS460 = 11 than DYS460 = 12. But this may switch when the next M222 Doherty participant joins. > > While this may be not the same as the "sweet spot" concept where the STR value for an individual family line mutates back to a specific value, it seems this group is behaving this way. > > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I agree, revisiting these groups is warranted. I'm glad you mentioned the question that Barbara brought to me as the one thing separating the cousins is a mutation at DYS 439 where 1 of them mutated 11 rather than a 12 at 439; and because there was evidence in project of that 11 repeat mutation, they were separated and grouped accordingly. This is why, and I know that I've harped on it, the genealogical information is necessary to qualify any assessment of lineages for analyses. Without it what we have are the haplotypes alone with their quirky mutations. With them we see where and can assess possibly what branch of a lineage and sometimes what generation that mutation occurred. I also am very encouraged that men of this project are pursuing the SNP testing by various means...BISDNA Chromo2, FTDNA BigY, and the single SNP options now available to us by only FTDNA. As Thomas Krahn's new enterprise gets up and running we will have an alternative go to place at less expense (at least presently) for those single SNP options. Susan Hedeen On 11/25/2013 10:26 AM, Robert Doherty wrote: >> On 11/22/2013 5:30 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: >> However, I am bothered about the influence of reverse mutations on >> ancestral projections and comparisons. We need widespread sampling of >> several related generations to establish the importance of this >> possible effect, but those data are unlikely to become available for >> many years, if not generations. > In the Doherty Surname group we have two fairly well documented groups of fathers, brothers, cousins and uncles who have up to a 5 pr 6 GD mismatch among them. There are not only mutations between an uncle and nephews, but also between the two groups. Yet the two groups have been able to verify that they are indeed cousins. Barbara Andrews, who leads the research for one group had Susan Hedeen analyze the matches and her analysis initially indicated that the other line (Carleen Doherty's) and her line aren't as closely tied as some of the other matches. > > Maybe this should be revisited. Since it seems more cousins are being added to this group (i.e. Doherty participant kit 301205 has just joined the the Doherty Surname group). > > Bob Doherty > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >