I wonder where did FTDNA get their M222 samples from for the Big Y test? Did they carry out further tests on M222 people who took the Geno 2.0 test? - Aidan. On 10 Nov 2013 23:58, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Iain Kennedy) > 2. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Susan Hedeen) > 3. Geno2 (Brian Callahan) > 4. Re: M222 Could Originate in? ([email protected]) > 5. Re: M222 Could Originate in? (Susan Hedeen) > 6. Re: Chromo2 ordered ([email protected]) > 7. Re: M222 Could Originate in? ([email protected]) > 8. Big Y test ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 16:59:28 +0000 > From: Iain Kennedy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:06:55 -0500 > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Agreed...perhaps a misspeak to allude to the new Geno product? But if > he's referring to the old Geno2 product either these snps he is > referring to were not vetted very well to begin with or they didn't > report all the positives so that the reservation could be incorporated > into papers and products being announced now--ie does the reference that > the personal home pages in process of being up-dated allude to this > possibility?--or just WHAT IN THE HECK is going on????? or not going > on? Susan Hedeen > > On 11/10/2013 11:59 AM, Iain Kennedy wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:28:11 -0500 > From: Brian Callahan <[email protected]> > Subject: [R-M222] Geno2 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > We have heard this all before. Geno2 still has me as DF23 & despite more > than a few emails. So many M222 tested Geno2 but very few got any real > answers. If there are really so many new SNPs under M222 then they should > retest us. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:18:52 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:01:44 -0500 > From: Susan Hedeen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected], "[email protected] com" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:29:15 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Chromo2 ordered > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Bob, on another note, since there is a lot of confusion at present about > these tests, it will be important for those of us on this forum to test out > certain claims. Some of us are working on this and we know the weak areas > already. I understand Brendan Davitt is still waiting on his DF97 test, > which will be important. > > Since it is known, the McDavitts are a branch of the O'Dochartaighs > downstream and we known the split occurred within an historic timeframe, > which > the late John McLaughlin also worked on, we know roughly, when it branched > off. If it comes back positive, then another link in the chain has been > formed > since Brendan's STRs are close the O'Dochartaigh line. > > Take a look and pay special attention to YCAIIb and then CDYa-b and then > look at 413a-b = 21-21. If Brendan's result comes back positive, this will > give us a timeline to compare with others that are DF97+, and others that > are only DF85+ and not DF97-. The work continues. > > Alan > > > In a message dated 09/11/2013 01:18:47 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > I just placed an order for Chromo2 (C2RawYDNA) with Irelands DNA. > > Does anyone have an idea of the turn around time from ordering the test to > seeing actual Chromo2 results (assuming one returns the test kit > promptly)? > > I sure hope BISDNA listens to Susan's plea for transparency between > testing entity labeling of SNPs. I would think that BISDNA could see some > benefits to themselves from the research and analysis that the members on > this > site have already contributed to understanding how YDNA can be made > relevant > to their customers who want to see how YDNA complements genealogy efforts. > > Also, does anyone have any comment on the YDNA testing that Ancestry.com > is offering? I am trying to figure out what one gets for Ancestry's $99 > (USD) package that they are promoting to existing users of Ancestry.com > and > FamilyTreeMaker. > > Bob Doherty FTDNA Kit 29142, M222+ df97+ df85+ > > Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:41:13 -0500 (EST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Could Originate in? > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Appreciate you comment, yes it is a big reach and only time will prove > whether this is another big hype to sell more test kits. The pressure is > on for > those companies to come clean about those SNPs and more importantly, for > others better place on this forum reading this email to put more pressure > on > them to do something about it! > > Alan > > > In a message dated 10/11/2013 23:02:22 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:58:02 +0000 (UTC) > From: [email protected] > Subject: [R-M222] Big Y test > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Someone at the conference said the new test is for 10 million bp, while > the FG test is for 14 million. In closing remarks Bennett seemed to say > that there is much tweeking yet to do with it, and first results will take > three or four months. > Dr. Hammer said the Geno 2.0 test reports on about 20 SNPs downstream > from M222. I sent up a question (they must be in writing) saying that only > a few of these have been confirmed from Geno 2.0 results, so where are all > those others? My question was not read. > Dr. Hammer did show a chart of the current L21 status. Under M222 four > were listed --PF3292, PF3988, L198, and Z70. > Paul > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 7, Issue 420 > ****************************************** >