See Ann Turner's response on Genealogy-DNA latest digest for her thoughts on ............> I look forward to the >> promised S series details. > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] CeCe Moore has news from Jim Wilson in her blog thismorning > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:43:53 -0500 > References: <[email protected]> > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > > I actually saw this list myself yesterday...upon examination, the > several pages of SNPs are the CTS SNPs with their few equivalents by > other names mostly PF SNPs, a few others with prefixes such as L, YSC > and Z. I found 3 S SNP references on it...S6085 being CTS11220/PF4100; > S66 being CTS1642; and S587 being CTS12363. I look forward to the > promised S series details. Susan Hedeen

YeP, saw it earlier; it is correct that, if indeed there is no alternative to a S series ID'd SNP, that the S series SNP designations should be used. The dilemma I see at the moment for Wilson is that it certainly appears that his lab has also relabeled SNPs found by other labs or individuals with his S series designates. Undoubtedly he may have SNPs with no known equivalents, but how would we really know if the details from his and the other labs are also not made public. Additionally, those SNPs he has provided details to ISOGG are listed on the tree with his S series prefixes along with equivalents ID'd w/prefixes from other labs if they exist. When details of discovery are not formerly made along with a date when they were ID'd and labeled in what ever lab, when another lab ID's the same SNP, if there is no reference for them to see whether or not it has been so ID'd by another individual/lab, it is understandable that in house ID labels will be put on them. It is very difficult for any of us to know what is genuinely coincidental and what is disingenuous. I prefer to believe that most of the multiple labels are genuinely coincidental just because I hate thinking of the alternative, but this is why there needs to be some mechanism in place for both labeling as well as protecting the discoverers. For our purposes, I think none of us really care who discovers them. We want to know what is what so as not to duplicate expenditures in testing and KNOW what the phylogenetic positions are. Susan Hedeen On 11/21/2013 9:12 AM, Linda McKee wrote: > See Ann Turner's response on Genealogy-DNA latest digest for her > thoughts on ............> I look forward to the >