Hey, Colin, Yes it is interesting....just a few comments: The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the individual will have. Understandably the Clade modal is a constructed haplotype consisting of the modal values for each allele (STR). In some cases the modal value is a majority by just a few while in others it is the majority without exception. The modal was set years ago long before we knew here were any down stream SNPs. Thus far the modal for df85+ is nearly the same as the M222 modal, so the matching across SNP lines is perfectly understandable as well. The modal Value for the Clade M222 will likely remain the same; however the modals for the down streams may very well differ. Once we have enough results from each down stream SNP ID'd to form their individual modals we may then go about the task of attempting to learn an approximate age for them which undoubtedly will change with more and more results due to testing. Presently df85+ is looking rather diverse and the TMRCA of those tested positive is nearly as old as current estimates of the age of M222 as well; however this is all preliminary. Susan Hedeen On 11/21/2013 12:27 PM, Colin Ferguson wrote: > Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now > appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project > tables. > > When I view matches using "myFTNDA" page I have 63 yDNA67 matches, of > these nobody else tested DF85 and 4 tested yDNA111. I am off the M222 > 67 marker modal at 7 markers. I have zero yDNA111 matches. > > A more interesting case is that of kit 202608 which is in both the > Fergus(s)on and M222 project. The label is Ferguson M222+, DF85-, > DF97-, L555- and this kit has 582 matches at the 67 marker level. It > is off the M222 67 marker modal at 4 markers. The matches to persons > who tested DF85 are: > > GD, Name + Label > 4 Costigan DF85- DF97- > 4 Wilson DF85- DF97- > 5 Coyne M222+ DF85- > 7 DePew Geno2 DF85- > 7 Milligan DF85- DF97- > 7 Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending > 7 Harrison M222+ DF85+ DF97+ > 7 Leonard M222+ DF85- Jr. > > Note that 2 of them are DF85+ DF97+ > > Of those 582 matches at 67 markers, 116 have tested yDNA111 and of > those 5 appear in the myFTDNA match list for kit 202608 at 111 > markers. Finally, of those 5 only 1 tested DF85 and he is Costigan > DF85- DF97- > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Susan, "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the individual will have." That is very interesting. If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been wrestling with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they have only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one of my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches each of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my family tree! I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal is a useful parameter and one that should be made public. Your thoughts? Brad Knowles On 11/21/2013 11:53 AM, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Hey, Colin, > Yes it is interesting....just a few comments: > The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the > individual will have. > > Understandably the Clade modal is a constructed haplotype consisting of > the modal values for each allele (STR). In some cases the modal value > is a majority by just a few while in others it is the majority without > exception. > > The modal was set years ago long before we knew here were any down > stream SNPs. > > Thus far the modal for df85+ is nearly the same as the M222 modal, so > the matching across SNP lines is perfectly understandable as well. > > The modal Value for the Clade M222 will likely remain the same; however > the modals for the down streams may very well differ. Once we have > enough results from each down stream SNP ID'd to form their individual > modals we may then go about the task of attempting to learn an > approximate age for them which undoubtedly will change with more and > more results due to testing. > > Presently df85+ is looking rather diverse and the TMRCA of those tested > positive is nearly as old as current estimates of the age of M222 as > well; however this is all preliminary. Susan Hedeen > > On 11/21/2013 12:27 PM, Colin Ferguson wrote: >> Its nice that FTDNA has started doing this. My name for example now >> appears as 12701 Ferguson M222+ DF85- DF97- in the M222 project >> tables. >> >> When I view matches using "myFTNDA" page I have 63 yDNA67 matches, of >> these nobody else tested DF85 and 4 tested yDNA111. I am off the M222 >> 67 marker modal at 7 markers. I have zero yDNA111 matches. >> >> A more interesting case is that of kit 202608 which is in both the >> Fergus(s)on and M222 project. The label is Ferguson M222+, DF85-, >> DF97-, L555- and this kit has 582 matches at the 67 marker level. It >> is off the M222 67 marker modal at 4 markers. The matches to persons >> who tested DF85 are: >> >> GD, Name + Label >> 4 Costigan DF85- DF97- >> 4 Wilson DF85- DF97- >> 5 Coyne M222+ DF85- >> 7 DePew Geno2 DF85- >> 7 Milligan DF85- DF97- >> 7 Slavens M222+ DF85+ DF97 pending >> 7 Harrison M222+ DF85+ DF97+ >> 7 Leonard M222+ DF85- Jr. >> >> Note that 2 of them are DF85+ DF97+ >> >> Of those 582 matches at 67 markers, 116 have tested yDNA111 and of >> those 5 appear in the myFTDNA match list for kit 202608 at 111 >> markers. Finally, of those 5 only 1 tested DF85 and he is Costigan >> DF85- DF97- >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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