Hi Iain, Could you try and clarify something, namely the word 'equivalent'. Jim's original tree was titled 'M222 and ~ 24 equivalents'. As a mathematician, I have to say that 'equivalent' means 'is the same as'. So S675 is equivalent to DF85. To say that M222 is equivalent to for example S675 seems like a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps we need to know what 'phylogenically equivalent' means? Best, Sandy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iain Kennedy Sent: 19 November 2013 18:21 To: [email protected] Subject: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree 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

Hi Sandy, This is a phrase geneticists like to use but a mathematician wouldn't :-) If we consider that a SNP is expected every 2-3 generations so of course the chances of the same individual producing 24 is minute. 'Unseparated' is a better way of thinking of it IMHO. The specific example you quoted is different- I would call those synonymous. regards Iain > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:34:53 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree > > Hi Iain, > > Could you try and clarify something, namely the word 'equivalent'. > > Jim's original tree was titled 'M222 and ~ 24 equivalents'. As a > mathematician, I have to say that 'equivalent' means 'is the same as'. So > S675 is equivalent to DF85. To say that M222 is equivalent to for example > S675 seems like a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps we need to know what > 'phylogenically equivalent' means? > > Best, > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iain Kennedy > Sent: 19 November 2013 18:21 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Revised M222 tree > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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