I've added the 38--111 markers to Berry I've added the 68--111 markers to Shazell I've sent the spread sheet by request to those who asked for it. Additions and/or corrections have been made from feed back received. There yet may be, and I suspect, omissions from the Data set. I try to be correct and inclusive; if the correct and specific information is not posted to the forum or I am not otherwise notified privately, it can't be reflected. To add to this, Linda has actually posted to the project spread sheet the question: BIG Y---What is your most downstream SNP?: Crellin, O'Shaughnessy, Dunbar, Ferguson, McWilliams, Braswell see the project pages for specifics. For the BIGY people, I cannot assume what SNPs up-stream is/have actually been tested/sequenced etc. of what ever your terminal major SNP . I would ask that Iain confirm the major M222 down stream SNPs for each of the BIGY and FGC that he is looking at by actual SNP label. If the sequencing isn't testing XYZ SNPs that is important to know--if the opposite is true, that also is important to know. This goes to the viability of the tests involved. I also need to know which vendors and tests are involved in the reports to the forum...if it's Chromo2, YSEQ, BIGY / FTDNA single SNP testing, or FGC, please so state. I have not separated major groups by sequenced SNPs that we have no information on other than they were found in certain people who may have been confirmed for a major M222 SNP. We do not know where these SNPs are located phylogenetically; we don't know if they mean any thing other than possibly being a private SNP even though they may be shared by 2 people. For the Tree, this information is indeed helpful for members particularly because some may want to investigate; however, for the sub-clade SNP report where the information is considered also in terms of the phylogenetic tree where significant SNPs will be added to the ISOGG haplotree, until these SNPs are vetted and show their significance, the plethora of possible private and/or semi-private SNPs fragments the major groups too much. Some of these SNPs turning up in BIGY and FGC may turn out being private to a family or lineage (such as those for the Milligan) or may offer a possible sub-division (Ferguson, Williams; Howle, Degnen) to some of the major down stream groups, but until they are widely single SNP tested by others, we do not know. The DF97 group has a SNP shared by 3 and under investigation. Will it be found in all DF97--if so then it could be an equivalent and perhaps of no importance; or will it sub-divide the group? We do not yet know. For the membership at large I would ask that in addition to Iain for his analyses, you also submit links to your .BAM file, .vcf and .bed files to Mike Walsh mwwdna@gmail.com with permission to file and analyze the data. Mike is a co-admin of M222; he also is doing considerable L21 and sub-clades data management. Why? There are other specialists under the L21 umbrella such as Alex Williamson and James Kane who are providing functions different from what Iain is for M222 specifically yet are important for the over all assessment for both M222 and the L21 groups. They cannot imagine results just as Iain cannot imagine results. They must examine these files to do what they do, and in the end it is the cumulative information and the different considerations that assist all of us. The best assessments, help and advise that may be rendered comes from information sharing. I ask that you send Iain, Mike and me your Chromo2 raw data files if you have not already. More sets of eyes are always to the benefit to individuals and the many. We all have individual goals for the information pertaining to our lineages. This is a given. In sub-clades, however, all the lineages are important in assessing the sub-clade. Leave out information for a lineage and a piece of the sub-clade information is ignored and/or missing. All of us want to know how we fit into the big picture as well as how the branches of our lineages may relate and the lineages to one another. They all fit together ... how, where and when is the question...WITHOUT all the information there is not a way to fairly or comprehensively assess any of that. Information sharing has been a hot button issue among some. I'm apt to get into hot water here (no surprise) for speaking up on this issue, but it seems to me absolutely counter productive for people pay the money to test, receive results, and then decide there will be no or little sharing or sharing with a limited few. Unless it is shared there is no way to assess whether or not your own particular results mean something just to you, your particular sub-group, the sub-clade at large or any of the rest of it. There are a lot of agendas and assumptions feeding into those agendas at the moment, and for those of us that volunteer to be helpful to everyone, not just a select few, it is a frustrating and time consuming situation to attempt to address the needs of the many while also trying to pay attention to individual members and the individual groups when we have to spend time looking for the correct information. Different types of analyses require different skill sets; I do not know of any single volunteer assessing the data that possesses every skill set and/or has the time or interest in producing all the different forms of analyses that are required and necessary to address the big picture. Most individual members have few of these specialized skill sets. Your questions and observations, however are also informative and add to the understanding of the many. Again, if you want to see the spread sheet before it is submitted to files, I encourage you to ask me for it. I will gladly provide it. With best regards, Susan Hedeen

> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:02:31 -0400 > From: chantillycarpets@earthlink.net > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: [R-M222] data sheets...with request for information > > > I would ask that Iain confirm the major M222 down stream SNPs for each > of the BIGY and FGC that he is looking at by actual SNP label. > If the sequencing isn't testing XYZ SNPs that is important to know--if > the opposite is true, that also is important to know. This goes to the > viability of the tests involved. > This is already in the tree I maintain. Of course some individuals were already placed from Chromo2 and got slightly more accurate information eg they got good calls from it for S660 and S659 whereas that wasn't always mirrored by the corresponding BigY test. I don't think anyone has bothered about that since those SNPs are in the same box in the tree anyway. One Ewing did a followup test for S603 as it wasn't in the BigY coverage. The issues about lack of coverage of FGC4077/8 are well known and FGC4087 appears to be a good substitute. Everyone who got that from BigY has followed up and confirmed the other two. I don't think there are any significant loose ends in this respect. As far as sharing info those who have shared Chromo2 or BigY with me have done so on an open basis and all have been published. Likewise every test result from the FGC4077/8 group I have heard of has been published, the only exception being some intermediate Kennedy project results where we are still homing in on the final terminal SNP, at which point they will also be published. It's perhaps a good time to point out that analysing a BigY result without sharing is impossible since it revolves around comparisons between all the others both in the same branch and other branches. Two way sharing between all parties is implicit. Particularly given the unhelpful breakdown of 'known' and 'novel' SNPs FTDNA have issued so far. Iain