David I now understand that the appearance of CTS12173 in my entry into Mike¹s haplogroup file originated with ftDNA. Is there any point in informing ftDNA about their misrepresentation of our SNPs and calling them out for their carelessness, or are you and other administrators already doing that? David

David, I'm sure they have already heard from other admins about weaknesses in the newly expanded tree. I will be adding my voice to the chorus later today after further review of the positive individuals. CTS12173 is probably the most questionable new SNP in any of the projects that I am affiliated with. I will specifically mention your case, so there is no need for you to write if you don't want to bother. David Wilson -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Maclennan Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 7:06 AM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] The 24 FTDNA SNPs below M222; Locations proposed for PF3292 and Z70, and rough locations for others. David I now understand that the appearance of CTS12173 in my entry into Mike¹s haplogroup file originated with ftDNA. Is there any point in informing ftDNA about their misrepresentation of our SNPs and calling them out for their carelessness, or are you and other administrators already doing that? David ------------------------------- 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

David, can you please check the CTS12773+ status of the others misrepresented as CTS12173+ (I am CTS12773+). We have had at least one case in this forum of typos that caused confusion, so that is a potential explanation of what happened at ftDNA. David