Yeah, this all comes down to being a community project. You took the tests, you paid your money and so now toss those test results into the community pool. Or in other words, you are an M222? Ha! Big deal! But just what could that mean? And so now join the community. After all, we are an extended family, all of us. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >