From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:34:26 +0000 OK I'll have another go at replying :-) I was confused by you using the word 'now' twice. All I did was insert S7073 between M222 and all the tree below (plus the minor insertion of F3952). The relationship between all the SNPs you list is unchanged. Your description is in fact correct apart from using the word 'now' which implies the relationship was previously different. You had me worried I had somehow screwed it up as I had to detach some children and reattach them to a different parent (S7073 instead of M222). Iain > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:58:26 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree > > Very Interesting, Iain, and good going with that find, Rob McBride! > > The tree now would suggest, if I'm understanding it, that df97 and S668 > are brothers both descending from S673/known as df85 (what happened to > S675 ?); and S673/df85 and S588 are also brothers descending from either > S660 or S659...is that correct or are these artifacts of how the tree is > now represented? > > I very much look forward to Further clarifications of this with the > ongoing testing. > > Thank you Iain, Susan Hedeen > > On 11/19/2013 1:20 PM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > List > > > > I have several updates to the M222 tree this evening. Jim Wilson has provided a list of SNPs which he considers phylogenetically equivalent to M222 and are (mostly) on the Chromo2 chip. As the list is now too long to force into a personal name in my tree I have also posted the raw tree diagram he sent me which primarily shows the top level above and below, so it is not a replacement for the whole earlier diagram. > > > > There are three features in his new diagram: > > 1. What appears to be a new hg between S474/DF49 and S193/DF23 called S476 which is not on the ISOGG tree. > > 2. The new list of M222 equivalents > > 3. A new SNP below M222 called S7073. > > > > I have moved everything at the root of M222 below S7073 but having not seen Steve Lominac's raw file yet I can't confirm that he is positive for it. I am as is Rob McBride too of course. > > > > The other change to the diagram, which Rob McBride spotted and neither Jim nor I did is that he is positive for F3952, one of the SNPs we got off Geno 2.0 which previously only a Mitchell was positive for. I have double checked with Jim and he reviewed the raw genotype and agrees with this placement. My checking procedures have been amended accordingly and I have added Mitchell to the diagram too. > > > > Upper tree update: > > > > http://www.kennedydna.com/S474.jpg > > > > Main tree from M222: > > > > http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry about that, Iain for my bad grammar:-D)))! Thank you for looking again and thank you for keeping up the tree and talking w/James Wilson on the clarifications. It is interesting how this is playing out none the less and I'm happy that despite my bad wording that I was seeing your interpretation correctly. Thanks again, Susan On 11/19/2013 2:34 PM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]earthlink.net > Subject: RE: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:34:26 +0000 > > > > > OK I'll have another go at replying :-) > > I was confused by you using the word 'now' twice. All I did was insert S7073 between M222 and all the tree below (plus the minor insertion of F3952). > > The relationship between all the SNPs you list is unchanged. Your description is in fact correct apart from using the word 'now' which implies the relationship was previously different. > > You had me worried I had somehow screwed it up as I had to detach some children and reattach them to a different parent (S7073 instead of M222). > > Iain > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:58:26 -0500 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree >> >> Very Interesting, Iain, and good going with that find, Rob McBride! >> >> The tree now would suggest, if I'm understanding it, that df97 and S668 >> are brothers both descending from S673/known as df85 (what happened to >> S675 ?); and S673/df85 and S588 are also brothers descending from either >> S660 or S659...is that correct or are these artifacts of how the tree is >> now represented? >> >> I very much look forward to Further clarifications of this with the >> ongoing testing. >> >> Thank you Iain, Susan Hedeen >> >> On 11/19/2013 1:20 PM, Iain Kennedy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> List >>> >>> I have several updates to the M222 tree this evening. Jim Wilson has provided a list of SNPs which he considers phylogenetically equivalent to M222 and are (mostly) on the Chromo2 chip. As the list is now too long to force into a personal name in my tree I have also posted the raw tree diagram he sent me which primarily shows the top level above and below, so it is not a replacement for the whole earlier diagram. >>> >>> There are three features in his new diagram: >>> 1. What appears to be a new hg between S474/DF49 and S193/DF23 called S476 which is not on the ISOGG tree. >>> 2. The new list of M222 equivalents >>> 3. A new SNP below M222 called S7073. >>> >>> I have moved everything at the root of M222 below S7073 but having not seen Steve Lominac's raw file yet I can't confirm that he is positive for it. I am as is Rob McBride too of course. >>> >>> The other change to the diagram, which Rob McBride spotted and neither Jim nor I did is that he is positive for F3952, one of the SNPs we got off Geno 2.0 which previously only a Mitchell was positive for. I have double checked with Jim and he reviewed the raw genotype and agrees with this placement. My checking procedures have been amended accordingly and I have added Mitchell to the diagram too. >>> >>> Upper tree update: >>> >>> http://www.kennedydna.com/S474.jpg >>> >>> Main tree from M222: >>> >>> http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf >>> >>> Iain >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >