The old saying goes that liars figure but figures do not lie. Today, genealogy can be notoriously unreliable, but genetics can provide us with the factual figures that we need. Best, Doug On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM, EDWIN SHAZELL <[email protected]> wrote: > DF 97 ordered today. Still trying to pin down when the NPE happened in my > family tree as my surname has been traced back a long way and other > Shazells do not share M222. > > Ed Shazell > > > On 10 December 2013 08:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Projected DF97 negative (Lawrence Dill) > > 2. Re: Projected DF97 negative (Susan Hedeen) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:35:16 -0800 (PST) > > From: Lawrence Dill <[email protected]> > > Subject: [R-M222] Projected DF97 negative > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > McConkey?84366 is DF85 positive and DF97 negative. > > The following people are tested DF85 positive. They are > > also projected to be DF97 negative because they are in > > the same cluster with McConkey 84366. > > McConchie 173398 > > Shazell 194537 > > Dill 73271 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:34:49 -0500 > > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Projected DF97 negative > > To: Lawrence Dill <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > You are correct that this Donnachaidh McConnachie group because of the > > McConkey df85+ & df97- and the McConchie df85+ could be considered > > firmly df85+ df97-; additionally, I do believe the prediction because of > > cluster for the others to be df97- is a good prediction. > > > > With the testing, however, the two only confirmed are McConkey and Mac > > Adam. With the McConnachie (McConchie 173398) the df85 was ordered to > > confirm that group since there are several other McCs slated into that > > group and we wanted to make certain even though the genetic distance > > within this particular group is rather close. We did the same with the > > other M222 McConnachie (variously spelled) groups and clustered Duncan > > M222+ even though the GD w/Duncan is also close; but the GD among the > > other McConnachie group isn't so close...there is diversity in > > haplotypes there, and at some markers that are slower in mutating than > > the majority. > > > > With all of these various snps being so new to us, and for most without > > signature in terms of haplotype (df85 among them since it is so close to > > the R-M222 modal), the investment to make certain is a good investment. > > > > Susan Hedeen > > > > On 12/9/2013 7:35 PM, Lawrence Dill wrote: > > > McConkey 84366 is DF85 positive and DF97 negative. > > > The following people are tested DF85 positive. They are > > > also projected to be DF97 negative because they are in > > > the same cluster with McConkey 84366. > > > McConchie 173398 > > > Shazell 194537 > > > Dill 73271 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 490 > > ****************************************** > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >