I don't know if some of you are going to think I'm wasting my money but I've ordered cts12173. I've also ordered f3952 from ftdna to check if the result agrees with my chromo2. Mitchell was one of small number of Geno 2.0 who was z365+ while I am negative for it in my chromo2 so that must mean either Geno or Chromo2 is wrong on that snp. Sent from my iPhone

Not crazy, bravely intuitive. I believe the single SNP testing is yet done with Sanger, and we actually need this information since both Chromo2 and Geno2 were scanning arrays. It has crossed my mind that the recommendations from FTDNA may be their way of attempting to validate certain Geno2 results. I know in a few other projects that the Geno2 results are still being questioned, and one consternation over a particular SNP and its variable calls has been in the literal war zone for over a year as apparently the derived state could mean a division but the results are yet being deemed inconsistent. If that is what they are doing, vetting Geno2 results, I could be charitable to the process if they owned up to it and made it clear; but to recommend the retesting of SNPs, and charging for them, after these SNPs had been tested with result by their scanning array for a fee already, gives me heartburn. Additionally, I would have thought that they would have been more diligent about that when the questions and complaints were coming in. I have a reference for that due diligence in how Jim Wilson team at BISDNA handled the observations of the early weeks after release of Chromo2. There is no comparison. They began the validation process then and there and did it in house at no additional fee. The other issue for me, even if I can speculate that they now may be vetting, is the recommendation to test SNPs that cannot be found positive under any condition in candidates where the phylogeny of their SNPs for all intents and purposes has already been settled...such as recommending confirmed by single SNP tests in their labs of DF97 under DF85 and then recommending F3952. It is irresponsible IMO. The rationalization they put forth (in paraphrase) is that they don't take the word of observation -- the only proof they accept is evidence out of published work or observation in their own lab. Well in these samples positive for DF97 and DF85 single SNP testing already (deemed F3952 negative separately from Geno2) was in their lab in all instances, so that rationalization seems a bit disingenuous to me even if they could go to the extent of arguing that they have not vetted the phylogeny yet. We know this is true, obviously, they haven't. Susan Do not misunderstand me...this is not a "bash FTDNA" On 4/26/2014 11:04 AM, Robert McBride wrote: > I don't know if some of you are going to think I'm wasting my money but I've ordered cts12173. I've also ordered f3952 from ftdna to check if the result agrees with my chromo2. > > Mitchell was one of small number of Geno 2.0 who was z365+ while I am negative for it in my chromo2 so that must mean either Geno or Chromo2 is wrong on that snp. > > Sent from my iPhone > > ------------------------------- > 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 >