I inadvertently omitted Geoff Melloy. My sincere apologies. In my hand written notes but -- I am adding Geoff to S668 Susan

My email client is acting up...and I think there is also an operator error -- in other words I made a gaff. There is an erroneous reply to address. PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU NOTE MY ADDRESS ABOVE and don't reply to my realtor. ------------------------------- I am about to post the new work sheet; however thought I'd give individuals the opportunity to review prior to doing so. Extra sets of eyes always a good thing in the event of even a slight error or omission. Any that desire to review it PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY. Here is a summary report of the work, separated by headers. DF97: 18 surnames 33 results (1 being used as a proxy for another) 67Marks 1550±175 ybd w/out Coleman 400 CE 37Marks 1650±200 ybd w/Coleman 300 CE S668 2 surnames (Allison and McCollum) 2 results 67Marks 750±295 ybd 1200 CE S673 Boath…no strs Dunbar one only haplotype, hence no TMRCA DF85 8 surnames 9 results 67Marks 1525±260 ybd 425 CE 37Marks 2000±330 ybd 50BCE DF104 (S661) McKenzie (neg 1265, df85) FTDNA DF104 DF105/S659 - S660/DF109 27 surnames 30 results 67M 1450±180 ybd 500 CE 111M 1425±150ybd same To deflect the comment about how can DF97 and DF85 be showing a higher median age than S660, take note that TMRCA is a statistical function and the numbers are withing the margins of one another DF97: 1550±175 ybd DF85: 1525±260 ybd S660: 1450±180 ybd AND in actuality, there is only a 4 generation difference with an average deviation of about 200 years for the median value. DF97 is a very diverse group within their haplotypes, and they remain nearly bi-modal. This bi-modality could be of a geographical consideration, Once the lineages there in are analyzed we may have a better flavor for it. S603 5 surnames 6 results 67Marks 1550±285 ybd 400 CE Same comment as above, including the bi-modality bit. S590 Byrne Chromo2 S590 S595 2 surnames 4 results 750±300 ybd 1200 CE S588 3 surnames (one testing S603) 3 results 1500±370 ybd 450 CE S588 and DF85 are apparently brothers as indicated in phylogeny DF85: 1525±260 ybd If these fellows remain terminal for S588, these numbers are supportive of the two splitting away from S660 at about the same time. S7049 McGonnigil FGC S7049 F3952 2 surnames 2 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE S7814 3 surnames 3 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE F1265 3 surnames 6 results 585±150 ybd 1450 CE Surnames involved may be linked by Clan and geography MacDonald, MacLennan, and McKenzie Basic TMRCA MacDonald/MacLennan: 315 ybd - 1635 CE - there is a good size standard deviation that I did not calculate MacDonald and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark MacLennan and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark S7073 Group in TOTAL 13 surnames 14 results 1425±210 ybd 525 CE of this group FGC4077/4078: 1325±340 ybd 625 CE FGC 4087: 1200±175 ybd 750 CE S7073 Beirne (K) Gillespie 1550±440 ybd 400 CE Which is consistent and within the margin with the group at large. This could suggest that FGC 4077/4078 and FGC4087 are equivalent Thus far all of the FGC4077/78 group that has tested for FGC4087 have been found positive to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't correct, please suggest a negative result. The average between the 2 of the S7073 remaining and the group at large is about 1490±325 ybd Since the standard deviation for Beirne and Gillespie is at over 28% -- that is a confidence level of about 72% and the confidence level for the group at large is 85%. S567 and S568 2 surnames 2 results one in each 1 haplotype belonging to Lamont PF1169 5 surnames 5 results 4 haplotypes 1200±300 ybd 750 CE Hope you find this helpful. Susan Hedeen There is an erroneous reply to address in my previous post. How it got there has to be operator (in other words - my) error. please note my email address if replying I am about to post the new work sheet; however thought I'd give individuals the opportunity to review prior to doing so. Extra sets of eyes always a good thing in the event of even a slight error or omission. Any that desire to review it PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY. Here is a summary report of the work, separated by headers. DF97: 18 surnames 33 results (1 being used as a proxy for another) 67Marks 1550±175 ybd w/out Coleman 400 CE 37Marks 1650±200 ybd w/Coleman 300 CE S668 2 surnames (Allison and McCollum) 2 results 67Marks 750±295 ybd 1200 CE S673 Boath…no strs Dunbar one only haplotype, hence no TMRCA DF85 8 surnames 9 results 67Marks 1525±260 ybd 425 CE 37Marks 2000±330 ybd 50BCE DF104 (S661) McKenzie (neg 1265, df85) FTDNA DF104 DF105/S659 - S660/DF109 27 surnames 30 results 67M 1450±180 ybd 500 CE 111M 1425±150ybd same To deflect the comment about how can DF97 and DF85 be showing a higher median age than S660, take note that TMRCA is a statistical function and the numbers are withing the margins of one another DF97: 1550±175 ybd DF85: 1525±260 ybd S660: 1450±180 ybd AND in actuality, there is only a 4 generation difference with an average deviation of about 200 years for the median value. DF97 is a very diverse group within their haplotypes, and they remain nearly bi-modal. This bi-modality could be of a geographical consideration, Once the lineages there in are analyzed we may have a better flavor for it. S603 5 surnames 6 results 67Marks 1550±285 ybd 400 CE Same comment as above, including the bi-modality bit. S590 Byrne Chromo2 S590 S595 2 surnames 4 results 750±300 ybd 1200 CE S588 3 surnames (one testing S603) 3 results 1500±370 ybd 450 CE S588 and DF85 are apparently brothers as indicated in phylogeny DF85: 1525±260 ybd If these fellows remain terminal for S588, these numbers are supportive of the two splitting away from S660 at about the same time. S7049 McGonnigil FGC S7049 F3952 2 surnames 2 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE S7814 3 surnames 3 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE F1265 3 surnames 6 results 585±150 ybd 1450 CE Surnames involved may be linked by Clan and geography MacDonald, MacLennan, and McKenzie Basic TMRCA MacDonald/MacLennan: 315 ybd - 1635 CE - there is a good size standard deviation that I did not calculate MacDonald and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark MacLennan and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark S7073 Group in TOTAL 13 surnames 14 results 1425±210 ybd 525 CE of this group FGC4077/4078: 1325±340 ybd 625 CE FGC 4087: 1200±175 ybd 750 CE S7073 Beirne (K) Gillespie 1550±440 ybd 400 CE Which is consistent and within the margin with the group at large. This could suggest that FGC 4077/4078 and FGC4087 are equivalent Thus far all of the FGC4077/78 group that has tested for FGC4087 have been found positive to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't correct, please suggest a negative result. The average between the 2 of the S7073 remaining and the group at large is about 1490±325 ybd Since the standard deviation for Beirne and Gillespie is at over 28% -- that is a confidence level of about 72% and the confidence level for the group at large is 85%. S567 and S568 2 surnames 2 results one in each 1 haplotype belonging to Lamont PF1169 5 surnames 5 results 4 haplotypes 1200±300 ybd 750 CE Hope you find this helpful. Susan Hedeen

I am about to post the new work sheet; however thought I'd give individuals the opportunity to review prior to doing so. Extra sets of eyes always a good thing in the event of even a slight error or omission. Any that desire to review it PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY. Here is a summary report of the work, separated by headers. DF97: 18 surnames 33 results (1 being used as a proxy for another) 67Marks 1550±175 ybd w/out Coleman 400 CE 37Marks 1650±200 ybd w/Coleman 300 CE S668 2 surnames (Allison and McCollum) 2 results 67Marks 750±295 ybd 1200 CE S673 Boath…no strs Dunbar one only haplotype, hence no TMRCA DF85 8 surnames 9 results 67Marks 1525±260 ybd 425 CE 37Marks 2000±330 ybd 50BCE DF104 (S661) McKenzie (neg 1265, df85) FTDNA DF104 DF105/S659 - S660/DF109 27 surnames 30 results 67M 1450±180 ybd 500 CE 111M 1425±150ybd same To deflect the comment about how can DF97 and DF85 be showing a higher median age than S660, take note that TMRCA is a statistical function and the numbers are withing the margins of one another DF97: 1550±175 ybd DF85: 1525±260 ybd S660: 1450±180 ybd AND in actuality, there is only a 4 generation difference with an average deviation of about 200 years for the median value. DF97 is a very diverse group within their haplotypes, and they remain nearly bi-modal. This bi-modality could be of a geographical consideration, Once the lineages there in are analyzed we may have a better flavor for it. S603 5 surnames 6 results 67Marks 1550±285 ybd 400 CE Same comment as above, including the bi-modality bit. S590 Byrne Chromo2 S590 S595 2 surnames 4 results 750±300 ybd 1200 CE S588 3 surnames (one testing S603) 3 results 1500±370 ybd 450 CE S588 and DF85 are apparently brothers as indicated in phylogeny DF85: 1525±260 ybd If these fellows remain terminal for S588, these numbers are supportive of the two splitting away from S660 at about the same time. S7049 McGonnigil FGC S7049 F3952 2 surnames 2 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE S7814 3 surnames 3 results 1100±365 ybd 850 CE F1265 3 surnames 6 results 585±150 ybd 1450 CE Surnames involved may be linked by Clan and geography MacDonald, MacLennan, and McKenzie Basic TMRCA MacDonald/MacLennan: 315 ybd - 1635 CE - there is a good size standard deviation that I did not calculate MacDonald and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark MacLennan and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark S7073 Group in TOTAL 13 surnames 14 results 1425±210 ybd 525 CE of this group FGC4077/4078: 1325±340 ybd 625 CE FGC 4087: 1200±175 ybd 750 CE S7073 Beirne (K) Gillespie 1550±440 ybd 400 CE Which is consistent and within the margin with the group at large. This could suggest that FGC 4077/4078 and FGC4087 are equivalent Thus far all of the FGC4077/78 group that has tested for FGC4087 have been found positive to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't correct, please suggest a negative result. The average between the 2 of the S7073 remaining and the group at large is about 1490±325 ybd Since the standard deviation for Beirne and Gillespie is at over 28% -- that is a confidence level of about 72% and the confidence level for the group at large is 85%. S567 and S568 2 surnames 2 results one in each 1 haplotype belonging to Lamont PF1169 5 surnames 5 results 4 haplotypes 1200±300 ybd 750 CE Hope you find this helpful. Susan Hedeen

Thanks for posting this Susan, really great work. I appreciate seeing the summary, it helps alot. John On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Susan Hedeen < chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> wrote: > I am about to post the new work sheet; however thought I'd give > individuals the opportunity to review prior to doing so. Extra sets of > eyes always a good thing in the event of even a slight error or > omission. Any that desire to review it PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY. > > Here is a summary report of the work, separated by headers. > > DF97: > 18 surnames > 33 results (1 being used as a proxy for another) > 67Marks 1550±175 ybd w/out Coleman 400 CE > 37Marks 1650±200 ybd w/Coleman 300 CE > > S668 > 2 surnames (Allison and McCollum) > 2 results > 67Marks 750±295 ybd 1200 CE > > S673 > Boath…no strs > Dunbar one only haplotype, hence no TMRCA > > DF85 > 8 surnames > 9 results > 67Marks 1525±260 ybd 425 CE > 37Marks 2000±330 ybd 50BCE > > DF104 (S661) > McKenzie (neg 1265, df85) FTDNA DF104 > > DF105/S659 - S660/DF109 > 27 surnames > 30 results > 67M 1450±180 ybd 500 CE > 111M 1425±150ybd same > > To deflect the comment about how can DF97 and DF85 be showing a higher > median age than S660, take note that TMRCA is a statistical function and > the numbers are withing the margins of one another > > DF97: 1550±175 ybd > DF85: 1525±260 ybd > S660: 1450±180 ybd > > AND in actuality, there is only a 4 generation difference with an average > deviation of about 200 years for the median value. > DF97 is a very diverse group within their haplotypes, and they > remain nearly bi-modal. This bi-modality could be of a geographical > consideration, > Once the lineages there in are analyzed we may have a better flavor for it. > > S603 > 5 surnames > 6 results > 67Marks 1550±285 ybd 400 CE > Same comment as above, including the bi-modality bit. > > S590 > Byrne Chromo2 S590 > > S595 > 2 surnames > 4 results > 750±300 ybd 1200 CE > > S588 > 3 surnames (one testing S603) > 3 results > 1500±370 ybd 450 CE > > S588 and DF85 are apparently brothers as indicated in phylogeny > DF85: 1525±260 ybd > > If these fellows remain terminal for S588, these numbers are supportive > of the two splitting away from S660 at about the same time. > > S7049 > McGonnigil FGC S7049 > > F3952 > 2 surnames > 2 results > 1100±365 ybd 850 CE > > S7814 > 3 surnames > 3 results > 1100±365 ybd 850 CE > > F1265 > 3 surnames > 6 results > 585±150 ybd 1450 CE > Surnames involved may be linked by Clan and geography > MacDonald, MacLennan, and McKenzie > Basic TMRCA > MacDonald/MacLennan: 315 ybd - 1635 CE - there is a good size standard > deviation that I did not calculate > MacDonald and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark > MacLennan and McKenzie: 470 ybd -1480 CE - same remark > > S7073 Group in TOTAL > 13 surnames > 14 results > 1425±210 ybd 525 CE > > of this group > FGC4077/4078: 1325±340 ybd 625 CE > FGC 4087: 1200±175 ybd 750 CE > S7073 > Beirne (K) > Gillespie > 1550±440 ybd 400 CE Which is consistent and within the margin > with the group at large. This could suggest that FGC 4077/4078 and > FGC4087 are equivalent > Thus far all of the FGC4077/78 group that has tested for FGC4087 have > been found positive > to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't correct, please suggest a > negative result. > > The average between the 2 of the S7073 remaining and the group at large > is about 1490±325 ybd > Since the standard deviation for Beirne and Gillespie is at over 28% -- > that is a confidence level of about 72% > and the confidence level for the group at large is 85%. > > S567 and S568 > 2 surnames > 2 results one in each > 1 haplotype belonging to Lamont > > PF1169 > 5 surnames > 5 results > 4 haplotypes > 1200±300 ybd 750 CE > > Hope you find this helpful. Susan Hedeen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello All, Matt tested FGC4077 - at YSEQ He is DF105+ YSEQ274 FTDNA 96185 Best regards, Mike Hannan for Matt Hannan

Thank you Mike --and Matt. Susan On 5/11/2014 8:30 PM, michaelhannan26@comcast.net wrote: > Hello All, > > Matt tested FGC4077 - at YSEQ > > He is DF105+ > > YSEQ274 > FTDNA 96185 > > Best regards, > > Mike Hannan for Matt Hannan > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

This was rejected by rootsweb due to the size of the attachment. If anyone who doesn't now have a copy of my raw data, and would like one, please let me know. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: mg_melloy@hotmail.com Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:49 PM To: Iain Kennedy ; Susan Hedeen ; Mike W ; Linda McKee ; Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ Cc: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Geoff Melloy Chromo 2 Goodo then - attached is the file exactly as downloaded. I don't think the rootsweb site handles attachments, does it? - so if anyone else wants a copy please let me know. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Iain Kennedy Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:31 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Geoff Melloy Chromo 2 Thanks for posting your results. About the raw data, please download the file and send out copies exactly as it is presented on the download page, please try to avoid re-saving it in Excel, Word etc. If you ordered the Raw product there should be a button to download it. I'd like a copy and so would Susan and Mike etc. Many thanks Iain > From: mg_melloy@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 20:48:37 +1000 > CC: elainedarling@flexinet.com.au; caroldyer41@hotmail.com; > jmelloy@gil.com.au; Lyn.Kally@gmail.com; anoccasion@gmail.com > Subject: [R-M222] Geoff Melloy Chromo 2 > > Hi all, > > I was pleasantly surprised a few minutes ago to receive notification of my > Chromo 2 results - earlier than expected. > > My subtype is R1b-S668, and my genetic signature is as follows: > > CTS10149+, CTS11150+, CTS11468+, CTS11575+, CTS11948+, CTS11991+, > CTS12057+, > CTS12633+, CTS12773+, CTS1738+, CTS2134+, CTS2254+, CTS2480+, CTS2569+, > CTS2664+, CTS3229+, CTS3315+, CTS3316+, CTS3358+, CTS3654+, CTS3818+, > CTS3844+, CTS4293+, CTS4437+, CTS4740+, CTS4944+, CTS5139(+), CTS5248+, > CTS543+, CTS6327+, CTS6376+, CTS6383+, CTS6445+, CTS7301+, CTS7604+, > CTS7659+, CTS7922+, CTS7941+, CTS8221+, CTS8627+, CTS8728+, CTS9200+, > CTS9556+, CTS9760+, F1794+, L1002+, L1013+, L1053+, L1084+, L1098+, > L1105+, > L1118+, L1123+, L1129+, L1130+, L1137+, L1143+, L1145+, L1150+, L1179+, > L1220+, L132+, L1345+, L1350+, L1352+, L265+, L278+, L320+, L352+, L438+, > L440+, L468+, L470+, L479+, L498+, L508+, L543+, L58+, L604+, L741+, > L752+, > L757+, L768+, L773+, L822+, L82+, L875+, L882+, L969+, M213+, M235+, > M294+, > M299+, M415+, M42+, M523+, M526+, M74+, P128+, P131+, P135+, P139+, P140+, > P141+, P142+, P143+, P151+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P163+, P224+, P225+, > P226+, > P229+, P230+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P236+, P239+, P242+, P244+, P245+, > P280+, > P282+, P284+, P285+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, PAGE081+, > PAGE083+, > PF1030+, PF1067+, PF1081+, PF1252+, PF1253+, PF1416+, PF1695+, PF1911+, > PF256+, PF2590+, PF2592+, PF2615+, PF2617+, PF2619+, PF2621+, PF2622+, > PF2624+, PF2626+, PF2629+, PF2640+, PF2651+, PF2653+, PF2655+, PF2658+, > PF2660+, PF2677+, PF2679+, PF2683+, PF2684+, PF2685+, PF2688+, PF2690+, > PF2700+, PF2702+, PF2704+, PF2709+, PF2716+, PF2718+, PF2722+, PF2734+, > PF2736+, PF2737+, PF2739+, PF2742+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2760+, PF2762+, > PF2775+, PF3495+, PF3500+, PF5459+, PF5461+, PF5480+, PF5495+, PF5857+, > PF5861+, PF5865+, PF5869+, PF5870+, PF5872+, PF5873+, PF5885+, PF5887+, > PF5893+, PF5898+, PF5908+, PF5912+, PF5914+, PF5917+, PF5918+, PF5923+, > PF5927+, PF5936+, PF5940+, PF5941+, PF5945+, PF5949+, PF5953+, PF5957+, > PF5958+, PF5964+, PF5966+, PF5977+, PF5980+, PF5981+, PF5982+, PF6016+, > PF6040+, PF6047+, PF6055+, PF6056+, PF6063+, PF6065+, PF6079+, PF6082+, > PF6114+, PF6115+, PF6116+, PF6129+, PF6136+, PF6143+, PF6145+, PF6242+, > PF6246+, PF6249+, PF6252+, PF6258+, PF6263+, PF6265+, PF6267+, PF6269+, > PF626+, PF6271+, PF6272+, PF6399+, PF6409+, PF6410+, PF6419+, PF6429+, > PF6430+, PF6432+, PF6434+, PF6435+, PF643+, PF6443+, PF6451+, PF6463+, > PF6467+, PF6469+, PF6471+, PF6475+, PF6481+, PF6484+, PF6487+, PF6495+, > PF6497+, PF6506+, PF6507+, PF6524+, PF6528+, PF653+, PF6541+, PF679+, > PF733+, PF744+, PF825(+), PF834+, PF869+, PF948+, S11330(+), S1159+, > S11638+, S116+, S12547(+), S128+, S138+, S145+, S1572+, S163(+), S193+, > S1984(+), S19862(+), S1+, S2003+, S2017+, S20246+, S20315+, S26361+, > S26903+, S349+, S351+, S3848+, S3+, S461+, S474+, S476+, S4888+, S4+, > S6141+, S6149+, S6152+, S6155+, S629+, S634+, S635+, S6378+, S637+, S640+, > S641+, S642+, S645+, S651+, S652+, S653+, S655+, S656+, S658+, S659+, > S660+, > S661+, S668+, S673+, S675+, S7072+, S7073+, S8235+, S8709+, S9158+, S959+, > SRY10831(+), V102+, V104+, V126+, V168+, V186+, V187+, V221+, V226+, > V231+, > V241+, V29+, V41+, V52+, V9+, YSC0167+, YSC0186+, YSC0203+, YSC0227+, > YSC1297+, Z1244+, Z2956+, Z2957+, Z2960+, Z2961+, Z2962+, Z2963+, Z2964+ > > I assume this will get to all the people who need it. I'm a member of the > L21 project, Sons of Aodh, Irish DNA and others. > > Would someone mind telling me what to do with the raw data? I know many > people have asked in the past but I'm a bit confused by it all. > > Also - should I now test for DF97 - and how? > > Regards > Geoff Melloy > FTDNA B3370 > YSearch Q97F9 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Melloy Kit Number: B3380 Test: DF97

*From:* Susan Hedeen <chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> *Subject:* [R-M222] project spread sheeet *Date:* Sat, 10 May 2014 13:53:28 -0400 Thank you Linda for all the work you have done on the project pages. I know the time consumption involved, and it should be acknowledged. The usefulness of the project pages with the up-dates is much appreciated. Susan =============== Susan, Thanks. Appreciate the good words. Ditto Iain and your own extraordinary contributions to advancing our members' knowledge of their yDNA SNP results. What is so great here is how everyone works together for the good of so many others. The giving of yourself for such worthwhile work is easy when so many others are so inspirational. Our project is very lucky to have yourself and Iain and David Wilson and MikeW and the Paul(s) and Bernard and Sandy and the other Davids and Alan and I could go on and on. We make a good team. Linda

Thank you Linda for all the work you have done on the project pages. I know the time consumption involved, and it should be acknowledged. The usefulness of the project pages with the up-dates is much appreciated. Susan

Just to be even clearer... the S660 testing advice below is aimed at *Chromo2 testers*. If you did BigY you should already know from me/the tree/your own analysis what your status is with respect to these new branches, and if you don't, please ask. One or two I may not have got back to after the raw file analysis, and one or two others haven't shared their BAM file yet. Iain > From: ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 21:34:00 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] needing advice > > John, > > I was responding to a question from Teresa there, so that advice isn't applicable to you. > > If you want to explore further, you would need to test some of the new branches under S660: > > A223/A224/A225 (all should be bought together) > FGC5939.2/A259/A260 (again, all should be bought together) > FGC4133 (so far only Milligans are positive for this but others could be too) > > This advice applies to anyone who has S660/S659 as their terminal SNP. If anyone is unclear what their terminal SNP is please shout out to avoid buying the wrong thing. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:08:28 -0700 > > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] needing advice > > > > Iain, > > > > You mention test as follows: > > > > round one: S660 > > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > > > It seems that I am negative for S588 and negative for FGC4077; there are a > > quite a few other markers and SNPs listed in my Chromo2 signature - is it > > that S660 would be my terminal SNP, and nothing (yet) discovered below it > > (besides S588 / FGC4077)? > > > > thanks, > > John > > > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Teresa, the best option would be to take advantage of the YSEQ sale which > > > should allow two rounds of testing before the price goes up (and even then > > > is cheaper than FTDNA), assuming one of your brothers is willing. A > > > strategy would be > > > round one: S660 > > > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > > > > > That will more or less nail it unless you are S588+ and then have to > > > follow up for a third round. The growing picture as you may have gathered > > > is a heavy concentration with S660 as their terminal SNP so statistically > > > that is probably the most likely outcome and a third round wouldn't then be > > > needed. > > > > > > I think Chromo2 is not such a good option in your case as you have already > > > eliminated one major branch. > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: teresaheiland@hotmail.com > > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:00:40 -0700 > > > > Subject: [R-M222] needing advice > > > > > > > > Dear Iain, > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if you could provide me with some guidance about next > > > steps with ordering SNPs for my father's DNA. > > > > I know just enough about dna analysis to be "dangerous" to myself. LOL. > > > > > > > > My dad's kit is > > > > 258368 at FTdna. He (Leo > > > Heiland) just passed away, so I won't likely be able to do a Big Y test > > > because FTdna says it likely will require additional saliva. However, my > > > brothers are living, so I could do the Big Y test at some point by asking > > > one of them. > > > > > > > > His results so far is R-M222+, DF 85-. > > > > > > > > The M222 Project administrators at FtDNA suggested I ask you for advice > > > on which other tests would be most beneficial to me to learn more specific > > > details. They said that I need to look "up stream" of DF 85, which I > > > understand in theory, but neither they or I know which tests to explore > > > next. They encouraged me to ask you. > > > > > > > > Would you kindly provide me with some direction? I know you get a lot > > > of requests, so I understand if you are busy. > > > > > > > > Teresa Heiland > > > > (Daughter of an Irishman without an Irish name.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Another interesting paper -- this one I may actually study in detail in the future to see if I may reproduce their conclusions as it does deal w/STRs A couple of exerpts: "Finally, the question was addressed of how closely related selected source and migrant populations might be in terms of their extant Y-STR haplotype spectra. A comparison between Han Chinese from Colorado (USA) and Han Chinese from Beijing, Chengdu (both China) and Singapore, respectively, yielded non-significant PPY23-based RST (-0.002, 0.007 and 0.004). In strong contrast, African Americans from Illinois, the Southwest and the whole of the US were quite distant to Africans from Ibadan (Nigeria) (RST= 0.10, 0.12 and 0.09, respectively). Although likely not to represent the true source population, the distance between a group of Tamil from India and the Texan Gujarati population was as low as RST=0.008, while the distance between the Tamils and a migrant Indian population in Singapore equalled 0.03. Finally, the distance between European Americans from Illinois, Utah and the whole USA on the one hand, and the Irish on the other, was found to be consistently small (RST=0.01, 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). A similar trend applied to other European source populations and to European migrant populations in South America. Thus, Argentineans of European ancestry from Buenos Aires, Formosa, Mendoza and Neuquen showed virtually zero genetic distance to Spaniards from Galicia (all three pairwise RST∼0)." "The present study revealed a considerable number of null and duplicated alleles that were caused either by non-allelic homologous recombination between paralogous DNA sequences [35] or–in the case of nulls–by deletions or primer site mutations [36]. Compared to Yfiler, the PPY23 allelic ladder has been enriched with new length variants to accommodate the various intermediate alleles that were observed as well. Previous population genetic analyses consistently revealed that Y-chromosomal haplotypes have a highly non-uniform geographical distribution characterized by less variation within, and more variation between, population groups than autosomal markers [37]. This difference has been explained by (i) the smaller effective population size of Y chromosomes causing stronger genetic drift, and (ii) haplotype clustering due to widespread patrilocality. Therefore, population structure, will be more pronounced in Y-chromosomal genetic databases and must be taken into account when database counts are used to quantify the evidential value of matches in forensic casework [38]. It has been shown, however, that so-called meta-populations may be constructed for Y-STRs that have low haplotypic variation among population groups within a meta-population, but large variation between meta-populations [39]. If necessary, such meta-populations can be defined ab initio using geography as a proxy of genetic relatedness, or by taking ethnic or linguistic data into account."

Thanks, David for that clarification. I did notice the previous note but was unclear whether or not the mention of him being a son was a suggestion that the father's haplotype could be used as a proxy. We've a couple other instances of similar situation, and it is reasonable that a son or father's haplotype may be used as a proxy. Also, if I may ask that when these results are posted that in addition to names and kit numbers that the origin of the result also be mentions: ie BGY, Chromo2, YSEQ, etc. Most have been good in relating the preferred information so that it may be entered into the spread sheet; but I'm missing vendors for some. Thanks again, Susan On 5/10/2014 5:54 AM, David Wilson wrote: > Markers 38-111 have been reported, markers 1-37 are lagging. He is in the > R-M222 Project, but is not yet included in the public results table. 333192 > is the son of N32460 and is so far identical to that haplotype. You can use > it as a placeholder until full results for the new project member are > available. > > Table upgrades have been slow recently. Linda has noted recently that her > edits to the grouping based on new SNP results do not appear immediately. > > David Wilson > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen > Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 9:52 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7; dna-r1b1c7 > Subject: [R-M222] Coyne 333192 > > Where may I find the STRs for Coyne 333192? > He's in the SNP list for M222 but can't find him in the project pages Susan > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Markers 38-111 have been reported, markers 1-37 are lagging. He is in the R-M222 Project, but is not yet included in the public results table. 333192 is the son of N32460 and is so far identical to that haplotype. You can use it as a placeholder until full results for the new project member are available. Table upgrades have been slow recently. Linda has noted recently that her edits to the grouping based on new SNP results do not appear immediately. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 9:52 PM To: dna-r1b1c7; dna-r1b1c7 Subject: [R-M222] Coyne 333192 Where may I find the STRs for Coyne 333192? He's in the SNP list for M222 but can't find him in the project pages Susan ------------------------------- 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 Susan, I am M222 and apparently I am closely genetically related to at least a few of the Coyne name, at 67 and at 111 markers. Doug On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Susan Hedeen < chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> wrote: > Where may I find the STRs for Coyne 333192? > He's in the SNP list for M222 but can't find him in the project pages > Susan > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Where may I find the STRs for Coyne 333192? He's in the SNP list for M222 but can't find him in the project pages Susan

John, These are BigY discoveries and post-date Chromo2. They can all be purchased at http://shop.yseq.net/. Iain > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:02:39 -0700 > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] needing advice > > Iain, > > Ireland's / Scotland's DNA don't seem to be using the A223, etc. or > FGC5929, etc. notations, as far as I can tell. > > John > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > John, > > > > I was responding to a question from Teresa there, so that advice isn't > > applicable to you. > > > > If you want to explore further, you would need to test some of the new > > branches under S660: > > > > A223/A224/A225 (all should be bought together) > > FGC5939.2/A259/A260 (again, all should be bought together) > > FGC4133 (so far only Milligans are positive for this but others could be > > too) > > > > This advice applies to anyone who has S660/S659 as their terminal SNP. If > > anyone is unclear what their terminal SNP is please shout out to avoid > > buying the wrong thing. > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:08:28 -0700 > > > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] needing advice > > > > > > Iain, > > > > > > You mention test as follows: > > > > > > round one: S660 > > > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > > > > > It seems that I am negative for S588 and negative for FGC4077; there are > > a > > > quite a few other markers and SNPs listed in my Chromo2 signature - is it > > > that S660 would be my terminal SNP, and nothing (yet) discovered below it > > > (besides S588 / FGC4077)? > > > > > > thanks, > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Iain Kennedy < > > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > Teresa, the best option would be to take advantage of the YSEQ sale > > which > > > > should allow two rounds of testing before the price goes up (and even > > then > > > > is cheaper than FTDNA), assuming one of your brothers is willing. A > > > > strategy would be > > > > round one: S660 > > > > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > > > > > > > That will more or less nail it unless you are S588+ and then have to > > > > follow up for a third round. The growing picture as you may have > > gathered > > > > is a heavy concentration with S660 as their terminal SNP so > > statistically > > > > that is probably the most likely outcome and a third round wouldn't > > then be > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > I think Chromo2 is not such a good option in your case as you have > > already > > > > eliminated one major branch. > > > > > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: teresaheiland@hotmail.com > > > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:00:40 -0700 > > > > > Subject: [R-M222] needing advice > > > > > > > > > > Dear Iain, > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if you could provide me with some guidance about next > > > > steps with ordering SNPs for my father's DNA. > > > > > I know just enough about dna analysis to be "dangerous" to myself. > > LOL. > > > > > > > > > > My dad's kit is > > > > > 258368 at FTdna. He > > (Leo > > > > Heiland) just passed away, so I won't likely be able to do a Big Y test > > > > because FTdna says it likely will require additional saliva. However, > > my > > > > brothers are living, so I could do the Big Y test at some point by > > asking > > > > one of them. > > > > > > > > > > His results so far is R-M222+, DF 85-. > > > > > > > > > > The M222 Project administrators at FtDNA suggested I ask you for > > advice > > > > on which other tests would be most beneficial to me to learn more > > specific > > > > details. They said that I need to look "up stream" of DF 85, which I > > > > understand in theory, but neither they or I know which tests to explore > > > > next. They encouraged me to ask you. > > > > > > > > > > Would you kindly provide me with some direction? I know you get a > > lot > > > > of requests, so I understand if you are busy. > > > > > > > > > > Teresa Heiland > > > > > (Daughter of an Irishman without an Irish name.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

John, I was responding to a question from Teresa there, so that advice isn't applicable to you. If you want to explore further, you would need to test some of the new branches under S660: A223/A224/A225 (all should be bought together) FGC5939.2/A259/A260 (again, all should be bought together) FGC4133 (so far only Milligans are positive for this but others could be too) This advice applies to anyone who has S660/S659 as their terminal SNP. If anyone is unclear what their terminal SNP is please shout out to avoid buying the wrong thing. Iain > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:08:28 -0700 > From: john.loughney@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] needing advice > > Iain, > > You mention test as follows: > > round one: S660 > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > It seems that I am negative for S588 and negative for FGC4077; there are a > quite a few other markers and SNPs listed in my Chromo2 signature - is it > that S660 would be my terminal SNP, and nothing (yet) discovered below it > (besides S588 / FGC4077)? > > thanks, > John > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > Teresa, the best option would be to take advantage of the YSEQ sale which > > should allow two rounds of testing before the price goes up (and even then > > is cheaper than FTDNA), assuming one of your brothers is willing. A > > strategy would be > > round one: S660 > > round two: S588 if S660+. FGC4077 if S660-. > > > > That will more or less nail it unless you are S588+ and then have to > > follow up for a third round. The growing picture as you may have gathered > > is a heavy concentration with S660 as their terminal SNP so statistically > > that is probably the most likely outcome and a third round wouldn't then be > > needed. > > > > I think Chromo2 is not such a good option in your case as you have already > > eliminated one major branch. > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: teresaheiland@hotmail.com > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:00:40 -0700 > > > Subject: [R-M222] needing advice > > > > > > Dear Iain, > > > > > > I'm wondering if you could provide me with some guidance about next > > steps with ordering SNPs for my father's DNA. > > > I know just enough about dna analysis to be "dangerous" to myself. LOL. > > > > > > My dad's kit is > > > 258368 at FTdna. He (Leo > > Heiland) just passed away, so I won't likely be able to do a Big Y test > > because FTdna says it likely will require additional saliva. However, my > > brothers are living, so I could do the Big Y test at some point by asking > > one of them. > > > > > > His results so far is R-M222+, DF 85-. > > > > > > The M222 Project administrators at FtDNA suggested I ask you for advice > > on which other tests would be most beneficial to me to learn more specific > > details. They said that I need to look "up stream" of DF 85, which I > > understand in theory, but neither they or I know which tests to explore > > next. They encouraged me to ask you. > > > > > > Would you kindly provide me with some direction? I know you get a lot > > of requests, so I understand if you are busy. > > > > > > Teresa Heiland > > > (Daughter of an Irishman without an Irish name.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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

Russell N9094 is DF105+ FGC4077- and M226-; he has not tested for any branches below DF105. Heaney 116366, previously known to be DF85-, is also negative for M226, CTS8002, PF3932 and PF3988. These two individuals tested M226 because it appeared beneath M222 on the recently published revised tree. At the moment I do not see a single member of the R-M222 project who is M226+; many are reported as M226-. Not all Geno 2.0 results include a reading for M226. David Wilson

Hi all, I was pleasantly surprised a few minutes ago to receive notification of my Chromo 2 results - earlier than expected. My subtype is R1b-S668, and my genetic signature is as follows: CTS10149+, CTS11150+, CTS11468+, CTS11575+, CTS11948+, CTS11991+, CTS12057+, CTS12633+, CTS12773+, CTS1738+, CTS2134+, CTS2254+, CTS2480+, CTS2569+, CTS2664+, CTS3229+, CTS3315+, CTS3316+, CTS3358+, CTS3654+, CTS3818+, CTS3844+, CTS4293+, CTS4437+, CTS4740+, CTS4944+, CTS5139(+), CTS5248+, CTS543+, CTS6327+, CTS6376+, CTS6383+, CTS6445+, CTS7301+, CTS7604+, CTS7659+, CTS7922+, CTS7941+, CTS8221+, CTS8627+, CTS8728+, CTS9200+, CTS9556+, CTS9760+, F1794+, L1002+, L1013+, L1053+, L1084+, L1098+, L1105+, L1118+, L1123+, L1129+, L1130+, L1137+, L1143+, L1145+, L1150+, L1179+, L1220+, L132+, L1345+, L1350+, L1352+, L265+, L278+, L320+, L352+, L438+, L440+, L468+, L470+, L479+, L498+, L508+, L543+, L58+, L604+, L741+, L752+, L757+, L768+, L773+, L822+, L82+, L875+, L882+, L969+, M213+, M235+, M294+, M299+, M415+, M42+, M523+, M526+, M74+, P128+, P131+, P135+, P139+, P140+, P141+, P142+, P143+, P151+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P163+, P224+, P225+, P226+, P229+, P230+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P236+, P239+, P242+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P282+, P284+, P285+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, PAGE081+, PAGE083+, PF1030+, PF1067+, PF1081+, PF1252+, PF1253+, PF1416+, PF1695+, PF1911+, PF256+, PF2590+, PF2592+, PF2615+, PF2617+, PF2619+, PF2621+, PF2622+, PF2624+, PF2626+, PF2629+, PF2640+, PF2651+, PF2653+, PF2655+, PF2658+, PF2660+, PF2677+, PF2679+, PF2683+, PF2684+, PF2685+, PF2688+, PF2690+, PF2700+, PF2702+, PF2704+, PF2709+, PF2716+, PF2718+, PF2722+, PF2734+, PF2736+, PF2737+, PF2739+, PF2742+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2760+, PF2762+, PF2775+, PF3495+, PF3500+, PF5459+, PF5461+, PF5480+, PF5495+, PF5857+, PF5861+, PF5865+, PF5869+, PF5870+, PF5872+, PF5873+, PF5885+, PF5887+, PF5893+, PF5898+, PF5908+, PF5912+, PF5914+, PF5917+, PF5918+, PF5923+, PF5927+, PF5936+, PF5940+, PF5941+, PF5945+, PF5949+, PF5953+, PF5957+, PF5958+, PF5964+, PF5966+, PF5977+, PF5980+, PF5981+, PF5982+, PF6016+, PF6040+, PF6047+, PF6055+, PF6056+, PF6063+, PF6065+, PF6079+, PF6082+, PF6114+, PF6115+, PF6116+, PF6129+, PF6136+, PF6143+, PF6145+, PF6242+, PF6246+, PF6249+, PF6252+, PF6258+, PF6263+, PF6265+, PF6267+, PF6269+, PF626+, PF6271+, PF6272+, PF6399+, PF6409+, PF6410+, PF6419+, PF6429+, PF6430+, PF6432+, PF6434+, PF6435+, PF643+, PF6443+, PF6451+, PF6463+, PF6467+, PF6469+, PF6471+, PF6475+, PF6481+, PF6484+, PF6487+, PF6495+, PF6497+, PF6506+, PF6507+, PF6524+, PF6528+, PF653+, PF6541+, PF679+, PF733+, PF744+, PF825(+), PF834+, PF869+, PF948+, S11330(+), S1159+, S11638+, S116+, S12547(+), S128+, S138+, S145+, S1572+, S163(+), S193+, S1984(+), S19862(+), S1+, S2003+, S2017+, S20246+, S20315+, S26361+, S26903+, S349+, S351+, S3848+, S3+, S461+, S474+, S476+, S4888+, S4+, S6141+, S6149+, S6152+, S6155+, S629+, S634+, S635+, S6378+, S637+, S640+, S641+, S642+, S645+, S651+, S652+, S653+, S655+, S656+, S658+, S659+, S660+, S661+, S668+, S673+, S675+, S7072+, S7073+, S8235+, S8709+, S9158+, S959+, SRY10831(+), V102+, V104+, V126+, V168+, V186+, V187+, V221+, V226+, V231+, V241+, V29+, V41+, V52+, V9+, YSC0167+, YSC0186+, YSC0203+, YSC0227+, YSC1297+, Z1244+, Z2956+, Z2957+, Z2960+, Z2961+, Z2962+, Z2963+, Z2964+ I assume this will get to all the people who need it. I'm a member of the L21 project, Sons of Aodh, Irish DNA and others. Would someone mind telling me what to do with the raw data? I know many people have asked in the past but I'm a bit confused by it all. Also - should I now test for DF97 - and how? Regards Geoff Melloy FTDNA B3370 YSearch Q97F9