Circa 1796 there was conflict among the emerging Catholic weavers in Ulster and the local Protestant weavers.  Following a clash known historically as the Battle of the Diamond, many Catholic families were forcibly expelled from Ulster to Mayo by the new Orange Order.  Given that these expelled families were native Irish from Northwest Ireland, there could well have been many M222s among them.  This would have created M222 clusters in Mayo.  See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Diamond   Bernie Donahue Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad (A Light Heart Lives Longer) From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 6:11 AM >Subject: DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 7, Issue 423 > > > > >Today's Topics: > >  1. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Iain Kennedy) >  2. Third Big Y order from M222+ (Linda McKee) >  3. M222 in Mayo ([email protected]) >  4. Re: M222 in Mayo (Iain Kennedy) >  5. Re: M222 in Mayo (Rob McFadden) >  6. Re: DF85 (Linda McKee) >  7. Re: M222 in Mayo (Paul ? Du??ai?) >  8. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Mitch) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:42:28 +0000 >From: Iain Kennedy <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:11 +0000 >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? >> >> > >> > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and where? >> > >> >> A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 has been published at: >> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater >> >> >> I read the SNPs as: >> >> PF3297 >> PF3988 >> F3952 >> F3024 >> CTS8007 >> M226 >> F499 >> L196 >> Z70 >> PF2026 >> CTS8580 plus PF1909 under >> CTS3771 >> CTS10488 >> F1400 >> CTS9501 >> PF910 >> PF7301 >> F3637 >> CTS6 >> F1636 >> CTS11548 >> >Well spotted Bernard. I checked my raw Geno file and these are all in it except CTS8007. The image isn't quite good enough to be sure that's what it says though (there is a CTS8002 listed for example).. Given the large number of M222 people who took the Geno test though, it seems unlikely these are significant since no-one we know of has had a 'hit' so far. > >Iain >                        > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:45:51 -0600 >From: Linda McKee <[email protected]> >Subject: [R-M222] Third Big Y order from M222+ >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >> larry williams >> >> Kit Number: 229652 >> >> Test: Big Y > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:37 +0000 (UTC) >From: [email protected] >Subject: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: >    <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall) that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo. Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and blog soon. > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:51:44 +0000 >From: Iain Kennedy <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >80% is a staggering figure. But on the subject of Mayo I was under the impression they have done a special field trip there as opposed to neutral sampling by county all over the country? I could be wrong though. > >Iain > > > > > >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:37 +0000 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo >> >> Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall) that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo. Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and blog soon. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >                        > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:31:27 -0500 >From: Rob McFadden <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; >    format="flowed" > >Given Co. Mayo's history, I can't see how any meaningful conclusions  >can be drawn without examining the surnames of those tested.  Mayo saw  >significant immigration from Ulster over the years followed by  >significant post-famine emigration.  The population of the county in  >1971 was 28 percent of the 1841 population, more than a 70 percent drop! > >Quoting [email protected]: > >> Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall)  >> that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo.  >> Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were  >> M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and  >> blog soon. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:34:51 -0600 >From: Linda McKee <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] DF85 >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Hello Larry, > >I am very sorry about missing your order and have not a clue as to why >you were still listed in the regular group listing. > >Somehow I missed you  ;-( > >But, now I have found you and you are listed as Pending DF85 and/or DF97 >  ;-) on our excel. > >Linda > >> Message: 4 >> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 16:50:25 -0800 (PST) >> From: Lawrence Dill <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] DF85 >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >>     <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> I guess I was accidently removed from the pending list. >> My DF85 results are expected on Dec 2. >> Lawrence Dill, Kit # 73271 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:35:09 +0000 >From: Paul ? Du??ai? <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: >    <[email protected]om> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Let alone the fact that it's home to surnames with origins in U? Fhiachrach >and U? Bhri?in, both of which appear to be M222 dominated (the >semi-mythical half brothers of Niall) > >-Paul >(DF41+) > > >On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Rob McFadden ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> Given Co. Mayo's history, I can't see how any meaningful conclusions >> can be drawn without examining the surnames of those tested.  Mayo saw >> significant immigration from Ulster over the years followed by >> significant post-famine emigration.  The population of the county in >> 1971 was 28 percent of the 1841 population, more than a 70 percent drop! >> >> Quoting [email protected]: >> >> > Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall) >> > that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo. >> > Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were >> > M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and >> > blog soon. >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:11:00 -0800 (PST) >From: Mitch <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Message-ID: >    <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >Hi All, >? >? >I'm the Mitchell with the F3952+ result. In my never ending quest to understand all of this, what is it about this result that makes it interesting? Has anyone else had the same result? Have we learned anything new about this? I?am being tested for DF85. Anything else I should be doing at this point? >? >Thanks! >Eric? > >From: Paul ? Du??ai? <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 7:11 PM >Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > > >PF3297 -- shows up in Haplogroup G (see Ireland project) >PF3988 -- show up in Haplogroup I (see Ireland project) >F3952 -- shows up in M222+ in Ireland Project (Mitchell:? N10119) >Z70 -- shows up in I2a2b (see Ireland Project) >PF1909 -- shows up in E-V12 (see Ireland Project) >PF910 -- shows up in A-M202 (see Ireland Project) >F1636 -- shows up in R1b-Z9 (see Ireland Project) >CTS11548 -- shows up in I-M26 (see Ireland Project) > >You could be looking at unreliable SNP's that have had multiple independent >occurences. The fact that most of them appear in other Haplogroups kinda >bears it out. Interesting to see the F3952+ result for Mitchell. All the >above were from kits that had Geno 2.0 done. > >-Paul >(DF41+) > > > > > > > >On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bernard Morgan ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them >> are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at >> all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and >> where? >> > >> >> A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 >> has been published at: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater >> >> >> I read the SNPs as: >> >> PF3297 >> PF3988 >> F3952 >> F3024 >> CTS8007 >> M226 >> F499 >> L196 >> Z70 >> PF2026 >> CTS8580 plus PF1909 under >> CTS3771 >> CTS10488 >> F1400 >> CTS9501 >> PF910 >> PF7301 >> F3637 >> CTS6 >> F1636 >> CTS11548 >> >> Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? >> >> For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for >> the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222 >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized >> >> And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222. >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > >------------------------------ > > > >End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 7, Issue 423 >****************************************** > > >

Does anyone know if the test results were shared with the test takers during NatGeo's field trip to Mayo? Sent from my Nokia Lumia phone -----Original Message----- From: "Iain Kennedy" <[email protected]> Sent: ‎11/‎11/‎2013 2:54 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo 80% is a staggering figure. But on the subject of Mayo I was under the impression they have done a special field trip there as opposed to neutral sampling by county all over the country? I could be wrong though. Iain > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:37 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] M222 in Mayo > > Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall) that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo. Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and blog soon. > > ------------------------------- > 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

Paul, I think for the PF ones that's a given since they were originally found in Sardinian men. cheers Iain > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:11:06 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > PF3297 -- shows up in Haplogroup G (see Ireland project) > PF3988 -- show up in Haplogroup I (see Ireland project) > F3952 -- shows up in M222+ in Ireland Project (Mitchell: N10119) > Z70 -- shows up in I2a2b (see Ireland Project) > PF1909 -- shows up in E-V12 (see Ireland Project) > PF910 -- shows up in A-M202 (see Ireland Project) > F1636 -- shows up in R1b-Z9 (see Ireland Project) > CTS11548 -- shows up in I-M26 (see Ireland Project) > > You could be looking at unreliable SNP's that have had multiple independent > occurences. The fact that most of them appear in other Haplogroups kinda > bears it out. Interesting to see the F3952+ result for Mitchell. All the > above were from kits that had Geno 2.0 done. > > -Paul > (DF41+) > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bernard Morgan > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > > where? > > > > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 > > has been published at: > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > > > > I read the SNPs as: > > > > PF3297 > > PF3988 > > F3952 > > F3024 > > CTS8007 > > M226 > > F499 > > L196 > > Z70 > > PF2026 > > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > > CTS3771 > > CTS10488 > > F1400 > > CTS9501 > > PF910 > > PF7301 > > F3637 > > CTS6 > > F1636 > > CTS11548 > > > > Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? > > > > For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for > > the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222 > > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized > > > > And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222. > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

Given Co. Mayo's history, I can't see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn without examining the surnames of those tested. Mayo saw significant immigration from Ulster over the years followed by significant post-famine emigration. The population of the county in 1971 was 28 percent of the 1841 population, more than a 70 percent drop! Quoting [email protected]: > Looking at my often hard to read notes, I do not find (nor recall) > that Dr. Vilar said M222 had the highest diversity in Mayo. > Frequency perhaps. I think he said they tested 105 men and 80% were > M222. This should be clarified on the Natioonal Genographic site and > blog soon. > > ------------------------------- > 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 All,     I'm the Mitchell with the F3952+ result. In my never ending quest to understand all of this, what is it about this result that makes it interesting? Has anyone else had the same result? Have we learned anything new about this? I am being tested for DF85. Anything else I should be doing at this point?   Thanks! Eric  From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… PF3297 -- shows up in Haplogroup G (see Ireland project) PF3988 -- show up in Haplogroup I (see Ireland project) F3952 -- shows up in M222+ in Ireland Project (Mitchell:  N10119) Z70 -- shows up in I2a2b (see Ireland Project) PF1909 -- shows up in E-V12 (see Ireland Project) PF910 -- shows up in A-M202 (see Ireland Project) F1636 -- shows up in R1b-Z9 (see Ireland Project) CTS11548 -- shows up in I-M26 (see Ireland Project) You could be looking at unreliable SNP's that have had multiple independent occurences. The fact that most of them appear in other Haplogroups kinda bears it out. Interesting to see the F3952+ result for Mitchell. All the above were from kits that had Geno 2.0 done. -Paul (DF41+) On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bernard Morgan <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 > has been published at: > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > I read the SNPs as: > > PF3297 > PF3988 > F3952 > F3024 > CTS8007 > M226 > F499 > L196 > Z70 > PF2026 > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > CTS3771 > CTS10488 > F1400 > CTS9501 > PF910 > PF7301 > F3637 > CTS6 > F1636 > CTS11548 > > Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? > > For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for > the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222 > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized > > And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222. > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hello Larry, I am very sorry about missing your order and have not a clue as to why you were still listed in the regular group listing. Somehow I missed you ;-( But, now I have found you and you are listed as Pending DF85 and/or DF97 ;-) on our excel. Linda > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 16:50:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Lawrence Dill <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] DF85 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I guess I was accidently removed from the pending list. > My DF85 results are expected on Dec 2. > Lawrence Dill, Kit # 73271

> larry williams > > Kit Number: 229652 > > Test: Big Y

Dear Doug, sorry for the delay in answering, but I had to compact my mail as even after weeding through, archiving, saving and deleting stuff I still have nearly 19,000 that I need to weed through--no joke, it's been awhile since I've paid attention to it until I ran out of email allotment. You have done a lot of testing in a very short period of time. To that end, you have gone way beyond the call of duty in a very short period of time. Also, the decision should be a personal choice based on all the reasons you as an individual may wish to and/or wish not to test based on your goals and what you believe may be accomplished, etc. I am really touched by your confidence and sincerely appreciate the fact that you recognize that the work regarding M222 that I do is aimed at the benefit of individuals and the project. This indeed is my intention... But I'm NOT the only one. There are countless individuals in this project present and past, you included, who do the same: volunteer time, post to the forum, look at haplotypes and results until bleary eyed, research historical and genealogical information, spend money on testing, and all the rest. Every person works on stuff...and we owe our administrators our gratitude for managing the project pages and results; Linda, for instance, has been tirelessly checking daily for orders and results, setting up result groups in the project pages and more. Testing needs to be a personal decision, and I'll not make that decision for another person. Hope that is ok. Susan On 11/10/2013 10:46 PM, tuulen wrote: > OK, dear Susan, > > I know you work long and hard at this project. > > And so in my respect for you I will take whatever test you could ask for. > > Doug > >

I wonder where did FTDNA get their M222 samples from for the Big Y test? Did they carry out further tests on M222 people who took the Geno 2.0 test? - Aidan. On 10 Nov 2013 23:58, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Iain Kennedy) > 2. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Susan Hedeen) > 3. Geno2 (Brian Callahan) > 4. Re: M222 Could Originate in? ([email protected]) > 5. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Susan Hedeen) > 6. Re: Chromo2 ordered ([email protected]) > 7. Re: M222 Could Originate in? ([email protected]) > 8. Big Y test ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 16:59:28 +0000 > From: Iain Kennedy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > Iain > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > > > > > > Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA > Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at > > > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 > > > > I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well > as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:06:55 -0500 > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Agreed...perhaps a misspeak to allude to the new Geno product? But if > he's referring to the old Geno2 product either these snps he is > referring to were not vetted very well to begin with or they didn't > report all the positives so that the reservation could be incorporated > into papers and products being announced now--ie does the reference that > the personal home pages in process of being up-dated allude to this > possibility?--or just WHAT IN THE HECK is going on????? or not going > on? Susan Hedeen > > On 11/10/2013 11:59 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:28:11 -0500 > From: Brian Callahan <[email protected]> > Subject: [R-M222] Geno2 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > We have heard this all before. Geno2 still has me as DF23 & despite more > than a few emails. So many M222 tested Geno2 but very few got any real > answers. If there are really so many new SNPs under M222 then they should > retest us. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:18:52 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under > another > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is > echoed > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the > mutation > originated. > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA > (which > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration > in NW > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now > believe? > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy > like ScotlandsDNA? > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > Alan > > > > > In a message dated 10/11/2013 17:00:28 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. > We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > Iain > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > > > > > > Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA > Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at > > > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 > > > > I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well > as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:01:44 -0500 > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected], "[email protected] com" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > I have emailed Bennett Greenspan asking for a clarification. He likely > will not respond until next week, and if I do not hear before Wednesday, > I will email him again w/a copy to his side kick. > > The County Mayo thing ... a very big reach and hype IMO. Just because > they say it doesn't make it so. Just remember that. Susan > > On 11/10/2013 5:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno > Project > > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are > these > > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under > another > > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is > echoed > > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and > > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the > mutation > > originated. > > > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through > FTDNA (which > > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration > in NW > > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we > now > > believe? > > > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others > to > > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of > secrecy > > like ScotlandsDNA? > > > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to > test > > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:29:15 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Chromo2 ordered > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Bob, on another note, since there is a lot of confusion at present about > these tests, it will be important for those of us on this forum to test out > certain claims. Some of us are working on this and we know the weak areas > already. I understand Brendan Davitt is still waiting on his DF97 test, > which will be important. > > Since it is known, the McDavitts are a branch of the O'Dochartaighs > downstream and we known the split occurred within an historic timeframe, > which > the late John McLaughlin also worked on, we know roughly, when it branched > off. If it comes back positive, then another link in the chain has been > formed > since Brendan's STRs are close the O'Dochartaigh line. > > Take a look and pay special attention to YCAIIb and then CDYa-b and then > look at 413a-b = 21-21. If Brendan's result comes back positive, this will > give us a timeline to compare with others that are DF97+, and others that > are only DF85+ and not DF97-. The work continues. > > Alan > > > In a message dated 09/11/2013 01:18:47 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > I just placed an order for Chromo2 (C2RawYDNA) with Irelands DNA. > > Does anyone have an idea of the turn around time from ordering the test to > seeing actual Chromo2 results (assuming one returns the test kit > promptly)? > > I sure hope BISDNA listens to Susan's plea for transparency between > testing entity labeling of SNPs. I would think that BISDNA could see some > benefits to themselves from the research and analysis that the members on > this > site have already contributed to understanding how YDNA can be made > relevant > to their customers who want to see how YDNA complements genealogy efforts. > > Also, does anyone have any comment on the YDNA testing that Ancestry.com > is offering? I am trying to figure out what one gets for Ancestry's $99 > (USD) package that they are promoting to existing users of Ancestry.com > and > FamilyTreeMaker. > > Bob Doherty FTDNA Kit 29142, M222+ df97+ df85+ > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:41:13 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Appreciate you comment, yes it is a big reach and only time will prove > whether this is another big hype to sell more test kits. The pressure is > on for > those companies to come clean about those SNPs and more importantly, for > others better place on this forum reading this email to put more pressure > on > them to do something about it! > > Alan > > > In a message dated 10/11/2013 23:02:22 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > I have emailed Bennett Greenspan asking for a clarification. He likely > will not respond until next week, and if I do not hear before Wednesday, > I will email him again w/a copy to his side kick. > > The County Mayo thing ... a very big reach and hype IMO. Just because > they say it doesn't make it so. Just remember that. Susan > > On 11/10/2013 5:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno > Project > > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are > these > > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under > another > > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is > echoed > > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland > and > > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the > mutation > > originated. > > > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through > FTDNA (which > > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration > in NW > > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we > now > > believe? > > > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others > to > > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of > secrecy > > like ScotlandsDNA? > > > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to > test > > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:58:02 +0000 (UTC) > From: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Big Y test > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Someone at the conference said the new test is for 10 million bp, while > the FG test is for 14 million. In closing remarks Bennett seemed to say > that there is much tweeking yet to do with it, and first results will take > three or four months. > Dr. Hammer said the Geno 2.0 test reports on about 20 SNPs downstream > from M222. I sent up a question (they must be in writing) saying that only > a few of these have been confirmed from Geno 2.0 results, so where are all > those others? My question was not read. > Dr. Hammer did show a chart of the current L21 status. Under M222 four > were listed --PF3292, PF3988, L198, and Z70. > Paul > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 7, Issue 420 > ****************************************** >

PF3297 -- shows up in Haplogroup G (see Ireland project) PF3988 -- show up in Haplogroup I (see Ireland project) F3952 -- shows up in M222+ in Ireland Project (Mitchell: N10119) Z70 -- shows up in I2a2b (see Ireland Project) PF1909 -- shows up in E-V12 (see Ireland Project) PF910 -- shows up in A-M202 (see Ireland Project) F1636 -- shows up in R1b-Z9 (see Ireland Project) CTS11548 -- shows up in I-M26 (see Ireland Project) You could be looking at unreliable SNP's that have had multiple independent occurences. The fact that most of them appear in other Haplogroups kinda bears it out. Interesting to see the F3952+ result for Mitchell. All the above were from kits that had Geno 2.0 done. -Paul (DF41+) On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Bernard Morgan <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them > are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at > all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and > where? > > > > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 > has been published at: > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater > > > I read the SNPs as: > > PF3297 > PF3988 > F3952 > F3024 > CTS8007 > M226 > F499 > L196 > Z70 > PF2026 > CTS8580 plus PF1909 under > CTS3771 > CTS10488 > F1400 > CTS9501 > PF910 > PF7301 > F3637 > CTS6 > F1636 > CTS11548 > > Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? > > For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for > the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222 > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized > > And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

> > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and where? > A copy of Dr. Michael's Hammer's map of the new SNPs downstream from M222 has been published at: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151949352643444&set=gm.621729794551000&type=1&theater I read the SNPs as: PF3297 PF3988 F3952 F3024 CTS8007 M226 F499 L196 Z70 PF2026 CTS8580 plus PF1909 under CTS3771 CTS10488 F1400 CTS9501 PF910 PF7301 F3637 CTS6 F1636 CTS11548 Which is 21 different branches. However are they really under M222? For R-L196 (R1b1a2a1a1b3c2, R1b-P312>U152>L2>L196+) is a private SNP for the Barton family and seems unrelated to M222  http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L196/default.aspx?section=ycolorized And a Z90+ testee was negative for M222.

Someone at the conference said the new test is for 10 million bp, while the FG test is for 14 million. In closing remarks Bennett seemed to say that there is much tweeking yet to do with it, and first results will take three or four months. Dr. Hammer said the Geno 2.0 test reports on about 20 SNPs downstream from M222. I sent up a question (they must be in writing) saying that only a few of these have been confirmed from Geno 2.0 results, so where are all those others? My question was not read. Dr. Hammer did show a chart of the current L21 status. Under M222 four were listed --PF3292, PF3988, L198, and Z70. Paul

Hi All, and especially to Susan, OK, I am going for it, and I will take whatever yDNA tests could be required. Doug On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > Ah-Ha, well I may be sorry that I brought this. Thomas Krahn just > qualified the issue by stating that the bar coding is added only after > the sequencing is complete. So...if I'm interpreting his answer, then > the added bar coding may not be such an issue. I'm going to ask a > follow up question to him. > > On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > > Since I introduced this to the list, in full transparency: > > I just received answer from Greg Magoon regarding the bar code runs. > > BGI does not use them; UCLA? Not a definitive answer with the > > qualification, "To the best of my knowledge UCLA will not be using bar > > coding, either" > > > > On 11/10/2013 10:17 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > >> Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * > >> > >> In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have > >> asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or > >> UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in > >> view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in > >> their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a > >> red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then > >> FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does > >> it better but comes down to cost and coverage. > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Rob, I've got inquiries into both companies on what they mean by coverage, etc. I'll let you know what I can figure out, if anything. Unfortunately, some of this is chicken and egg. You have to try it to see what it is. As far as SNPs go, I've tried to tell both companies I don't really care about total coverage, etc., etc. I only care about the probability of accurately reporting and discovering stable (for phylgenetic trees) SNPs downstream of what we already known. Thousands of SNPs upstream make little difference to genetic genealogy and SNPs that are highly recurrent/unstable or can not be consistently/accurately tested are of not much use that I can see. On Full Genome Corp, I have a personal concern that others may not have. It appears your DNA sample has to be shipped to China to a lab that may be little more than a state agency. I don't trust my own government so I don't why I'd trust theirs. Regards, Mike W On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Rob McFadden <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't think this has been posted on this list yet: > > http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-new-big-y-test-from-family-tree-dna.html > > FTDNA is offering a new test for $499 (limited time, then $699) that > covers 10 million base pairs, 25,000 known SNPs and is expected to > discover new SNPs. > > The Full Genome is currently out of my price range. This is low > enough to be tempting, but would be a stretch. Are enough details out > there that someone could explain how much coverage this provides vs. > the Full Genome test? I also would like to know more about the > possibility of discovering new SNPs. If the whole genome is not > covered, what are the odds of finding them? > > Rob > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

OK, dear Susan, I know you work long and hard at this project. And so in my respect for you I will take whatever test you could ask for. Doug On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Susan Hedeen < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Doug, and all for that matter, it is of my opinion that the > considerations entering into any aspect of testing decision is the > question: "why?" > > Now let me preface this next remark with this: I do not have a bias for > either testing products or testing companies; so any inference that some > may jump to as a result of the remark isn't there. I am simply stating > an opinion based on my experience. FTDNA is an expert at marketing. > They like BISDNA, FG, 23 & Me, AncestryDNA are a direct to consumer > profit intending company. In my opinion they are a leader in the > industry and have produced great information for the Genetic Genealogy > Community; however this does not mean that there have not been issues. > > For R-M222, Geno2 was not all that helpful for us. I mention this > because the announcement of it and the manner by which it was advertised > and sold led us all to believe that it was going to be our answer. > Beyond the few who were successfully ID'd with some down stream SNPs > (for which the great majority have not received sufficient positive > numbers yet to qualify what further potential help they may be to us as > a project) it was not the help we hoped for. > > Similarly, Chromo2 has been hyped and sold to us, and really and > honestly, the jury is out yet to know whether or not it will be the help > that we anticipate that it will. In view of the preliminary testing via > Sandy and others, it holds tremendous promise; but until the results > come through for those who have ordered to date, we do not know how much > more help it actually will avail us. > > The best bargain on the block are the single snp options for df85 and > df97 through FTDNA; however, at best they likely will assist with only > 25% (df85) and 12.5% (df97--1/2 of the df85 positives) of our project; > hence 75% using the single SNP options will not get further definition. > > So, coming back to the question of "Why?" Presently our R-M222 project > is in the investigative mode to further understand the genetic > genealogical questions regarding our heritages ie which groups are > allied with one another since the mutation that birthed the beast of a > clade M222 once ascribed to being that of the descendants of Niall. We > know that not all R-M222 are the descendants of Nial and/or his > brothers. We also know that there is diversity in the sub-clade among > other things. Hence the testing we are under going now via Chromo2 and > the single SNP testing for df85/df97 via FTDNA may well answer that > question of which groups belong to who, and give us ample opportunity to > flesh out the theories of which SNPs are allied to which groups. > > Now what does either full Y sequencing and/or near full Y sequencing > further offer? More SNPs? Yes, but how useful may they be? That > question certainly will have a variety of answers depending on peoples > inclinations and desire to know in their quests. IMO there could be too > many SNPs. Let me qualify that statement: If the testing intent is to > identify SNPs right down into the nuclear family this type of full Y > sequencing has the potential to do that, the cost of which is any where > from the entry price through FTDNA of $495.00 to $1250 through FG to > more than that with other entities. FTDNA's project does not have the > coverage of FG; however, in any case we haven't been forwarded any > information on any help or assistance any of these FG SNPs may be to > R-M222 because those who have tested with results out haven't shared any > information with us. So how can we in actuality even know how helpful > their sequencing effor is? FTDNA's new product isn't up and running > yet, so we don't have any information there. There actually is more than > 1 FG subscriber that have ordered the new "Big Y" so when complete we > should have a better idea in comparison, but that is down the road. > > With enough tested member results, there should in time ability to > distinguish between individual families. The question then, "is that > what people really want?" For the most part families through their > genealogical quests have an idea of who are closely related to who. *My > sense is that what people are most interested in is who may be related > when the paper trail stops. > > I believe that those confused and/or in question need to focus and come > back to the fundamental question as to why we will test for anything. > There need be a reason worth investing the $$ into and a cost to > information benefit. "What do we really want to know and will the > testing answer reasonably?" > > There will always be pioneers, and the first down the trail doesn't > always equate with the success or failure of those who follow...they are > simply traveling ahead earlier. No one needs to incorporate testing > pressure upon themselves, particularly if the fundamental questions are > not easily answered. > > Onto the issue of bar coded testing runs: * > > In view of the issue of bar coded runs raised by Thomas Krahn, I have > asked Justin Loe specifically if he knows whether or not BGI (China) or > UCLA labs (that FG is attempting to Vet as an alternative lab to BGI in > view of the sequencing delays) also use the bar coding technology in > their runs. I asked this because the issue arose and wonder if it is a > red herring issue...that is if BGI and UCLA also use bar coding, then > FTDNA using it is the same, and then the issue is not which company does > it better but comes down to cost and coverage. > > I have not received an answer. > > Susan Hedeen > > On 11/10/2013 9:07 AM, tuulen wrote: > > I have tested for this and I have tested for that. But then come new > > tests. > > > > Do I need another test or am I simply supporting new technology? > > > > I am very much prepared to leave this perpetual rat race. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Cousin Bob has ordered the Big Y: > The following project member ordered an additional product: > > John Raymond Degnen > > Kit Number: 88905 > > Test: Big Y Good for you! Linda

What subordinate SNPs can be derived from Geno 2.0 anyway? Certainly neither DF85 nor DF97. As I recall there were 'six SNPs subordinate to M222' according to Greenspan which led many of us to test with said chip in the first place. I see nothing from Geno 2.0 reported solidly below M222 per ISOGG. Are we not left to discern for ourselves the data from multiple labs who amongst themselves fight for scraps? I believe so. Susan, if M222 is in indeed indigenous to Mayo, I certainly take it! :-) On 10/nov/2013, at 08:59, Iain Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote: > The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and where? > > Iain > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… >> >> >> Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at >> >> http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 >> >> I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Appreciate you comment, yes it is a big reach and only time will prove whether this is another big hype to sell more test kits. The pressure is on for those companies to come clean about those SNPs and more importantly, for others better place on this forum reading this email to put more pressure on them to do something about it! Alan In a message dated 10/11/2013 23:02:22 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I have emailed Bennett Greenspan asking for a clarification. He likely will not respond until next week, and if I do not hear before Wednesday, I will email him again w/a copy to his side kick. The County Mayo thing ... a very big reach and hype IMO. Just because they say it doesn't make it so. Just remember that. Susan On 11/10/2013 5:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under another > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is echoed > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the mutation > originated. > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA (which > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration in NW > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now > believe? > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy > like ScotlandsDNA? > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > Alan > > > >

Bob, on another note, since there is a lot of confusion at present about these tests, it will be important for those of us on this forum to test out certain claims. Some of us are working on this and we know the weak areas already. I understand Brendan Davitt is still waiting on his DF97 test, which will be important. Since it is known, the McDavitts are a branch of the O'Dochartaighs downstream and we known the split occurred within an historic timeframe, which the late John McLaughlin also worked on, we know roughly, when it branched off. If it comes back positive, then another link in the chain has been formed since Brendan's STRs are close the O'Dochartaigh line. Take a look and pay special attention to YCAIIb and then CDYa-b and then look at 413a-b = 21-21. If Brendan's result comes back positive, this will give us a timeline to compare with others that are DF97+, and others that are only DF85+ and not DF97-. The work continues. Alan In a message dated 09/11/2013 01:18:47 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I just placed an order for Chromo2 (C2RawYDNA) with Irelands DNA. Does anyone have an idea of the turn around time from ordering the test to seeing actual Chromo2 results (assuming one returns the test kit promptly)? I sure hope BISDNA listens to Susan's plea for transparency between testing entity labeling of SNPs. I would think that BISDNA could see some benefits to themselves from the research and analysis that the members on this site have already contributed to understanding how YDNA can be made relevant to their customers who want to see how YDNA complements genealogy efforts. Also, does anyone have any comment on the YDNA testing that Ancestry.com is offering? I am trying to figure out what one gets for Ancestry's $99 (USD) package that they are promoting to existing users of Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeMaker. Bob Doherty FTDNA Kit 29142, M222+ df97+ df85+ 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 have emailed Bennett Greenspan asking for a clarification. He likely will not respond until next week, and if I do not hear before Wednesday, I will email him again w/a copy to his side kick. The County Mayo thing ... a very big reach and hype IMO. Just because they say it doesn't make it so. Just remember that. Susan On 11/10/2013 5:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under another > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is echoed > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the mutation > originated. > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA (which > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration in NW > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now > believe? > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy > like ScotlandsDNA? > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > Alan > > > >