A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under another name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is echoed in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the mutation originated. Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA (which has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration in NW Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now believe? Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy like ScotlandsDNA? We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! Alan In a message dated 10/11/2013 17:00:28 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: The quoted remark "There will be 21 new SNPs under M222 and all of them are tested on the NatGeo Geno 2.0 test." doesn't make any sense to me at all. We would have seen them by now!? Who is he saying found these SNPs and where? Iain > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:52:33 -0600 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in… > > > Dr Michael Hammer gave an interesting presentation at the FTDNA Conference today on R1b origins. Highlights are reported at > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?p=950 > > I should note that the new M222 SNPs are available on Geno2 chip as well as FTDNA's new Big-Y test of 10 million Y base pairs on sale for $495. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

I have emailed Bennett Greenspan asking for a clarification. He likely will not respond until next week, and if I do not hear before Wednesday, I will email him again w/a copy to his side kick. The County Mayo thing ... a very big reach and hype IMO. Just because they say it doesn't make it so. Just remember that. Susan On 11/10/2013 5:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: > A few weeks ago Sandy Paterson reported ScotlandsDNA discovered 27 new > SNPs below M222 and now a few weeks later, we have the NatGeo Geno Project > reporting 21 new SNPs also under M222+. > > I agree, none of this is making sense and something isn't right. Are these > 21 newly discovered SNPs additional to those apparently discovered by > ScotlandsDNA or are they just the same but reported differently under another > name? There is a hint of commercial rhetoric in all of this, that is echoed > in the claim the M222 SNP is most frequent in County Mayo in Ireland and > [unconfirmed] that location is most likely to be the place where the mutation > originated. > > Are we now to believe Dr Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for National > Geographic's Geno Project, which shared its Geno 2.0 results through FTDNA (which > has just announced a new SNP test!), that we should now be focusing on > County Mayo, when Trinity College Dublin reported a higher concentration in NW > Ireland reaching its highest point in eastern County Donegal? Who do we now > believe? > > Will the National Geographic's Geno Project publish its data for others to > analyse in the same way TCD did or will there be another cloak of secrecy > like ScotlandsDNA? > > We need more accurate and transparent information about these SNPs to test > them out, before people become increasingly disillusioned!! > > Alan > > > >