Yikes, Doug, would you like to lend me some $$$$$:-D))??? I was surprised by the FTDNA announcement of the 20+++ SNPs on a sliding scale upward as (if I recall the original Geno2) was reported to have considerably fewer speculative M222 down stream SNPs on it. That said, we know that Geno2 chip had some transformations; what exactly those were I haven't heard specifically; but reading between the lines of the various reports of probes failing, no calls, bad calls, and SNPs apparently dropped from it over the last year, we must suspect that perhaps they clarified some--that is with the testing results it became more clear the positions of some which had not been fully vetted when added, and if they altered the chip any--which we do not know beyond the the suggestion of removal of some SNPs (whether it was total removal or simply not reporting on them because of the difficulties with them)--did they add others to fill in? I don't know, perhaps some of the guys closer to that testing might know---probably David Reynolds may know. I suppose when the papers are made available for all of us to read in total and attempt to clarify, etc, that we may have a better idea. That said, it seems that the Big Y will include the 20+++ what ever the final number as known SNPs while attempting to sequence more, many of the new ones probably being younger and quite possibly private and/or semi private SNPs. As for Chromo2, it seems that with some of them (we know S675/df85) have been vetted reasonably well with the greatest majority of them having question marks as to both positions as well as disposition. I believe I heard the phrases "we thinK" "looks like maybe" with questions as to not knowing particulars as to which are clade dividing and which may be private and/or semi-private, etc. So keeping it into perspective, despite Wilson's M222 draft tree, it is yet very much a draft being investigated; and he has clearly said that the sample pool is yet very small, even too small to firmly know some of these things. Testing more will tell. Any any case, our investigations through all 3 products, whether BigY, Chromo2, or Geno2 are yet the scientists investigations and research as well. With that in mind, eeny, meeny, mineey, moe...but I think Chromo2, which is the same technology as Geno2, is quite possibly more informative to us than Geno2 has been for us...at least as far as we know. Wilson claims that the SNPs on Chromo2 are different than the Geno2 SNPs (except for df85, df97 not on it but suggested to be close to S668--apparently both are now on Geno2 --unless I've misinterpreted something). We have only his word for that...are they different because they truly are different? or are they different because they've been labelled differently? I hope they are different because they indeed are different--he knows the positions and the primer properties for the Geno2 SNPs. I suspect with the lack of all around transparency that the best information for us is going to be the best comparisons possible among the results from all 3 products--I very easily can envision a scenario that what we believe we are seeing with the Chromo2 results rolling out being further clarified by at least BigY, and maybe Geno2 as well depending. It is unknown whether or not BigY will knowingly have any of the Chromo2 SNPs--as far as I know the details of these Chromo2 SNPs have not been released to anyone (with exception of df85/df97); however we do not know whether or not those researching the SNPs for BigY may have ID'd the same SNPs which are being offered under other names by FTDNA. With the further sequencing possibilities of BigY, those not already ID'd may become ID'd with hopefully the most promising being added to the single SNP testing program under FTDNA--that's on my wish list. To echo your sentiment, Doug, indeed it is annoying, but then these entities are in competition with one another, so each is vying for market share, discovery, publishing, probable grant money and/or endorsements, etc., and despite the need to have some standardization and firm guidelines established governing them, it is understandable as things exist now. I hope this helps you with your decision as to what you think you may want to do...I do not feel that I can give a recommendation beyond laying out what seem to be close to our understandings about what is and/or isn't facts. Susan Hedeen On 11/16/2013 8:49 PM, tuulen wrote: > My question is do I take the Chromo2 test or the Big Y test, or both of > those tests? > > In other words, what could one of those tests do which the other test could > not do? > > Doug > As a consumer, let me say that I am annoyed at this lack of clarity. At > this time I have the option of taking the ScotlandsDNA Chromo2 test and/or > the FTDNA Big Y test, but could they essentially duplicate each other? > > Doug > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Iain Kennedy > <[email protected]>wrote: > > This number of 'new' Geno M222 SNPs must set some kind of record for the > number of times it's changed > > It still fails to make any sense since all the ones on the diagram from > their talk are already on the Geno 2.0 chip (I checked each one manually in > my Geno file) and no SNP on the chip is new in any meaningful sense of the > word anyway... unless the database also has data that was obtained by some > other method than the Geno 2.0 chip which I'm not aware of. In which case > their list of SNP names was wrong. > > Not to mention the question of how they will get them through > qualification for the ISOGG tree (see the criteria I posted the other day) > without transferring them to FTDNA and manually checking STR diversity, for > which each tester would have to have a set of STRs which at this stage they > probably don't. > > I give up. Until they reveal all, tomorrow. > > Iain > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Linda McKee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Welcome to the latest M222+ BIG Y: >> >> Thomas Howle........56154..R-L21+ M222+ >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >