Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not have transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be members of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project are: PF1909 PF3988 F3024 M226 F499 CTS8580 CTS3771 CTS10488 F1400 CTS9501 PF910 PF7301 F3637 CTS6 F1636 CTS11548 F1732 F1033 The six other SNPs and the individuals who are derived for them are as follows: CTS8002 Grant 76350 PF3292 Gwinn 115365 F3952 Mitchell N10119 Z70 DePew N113849 " Kelleher N113900 CTS12173 Morrow 246349 " Dexter 164044 " Degnen 88905 " Desertspring N55831 " Braswell 196682 " MacLennan 2278911 " Davitt 251441 " Haslett N8220 " Mitchell N10119 " Farrell N112356 " Crellin 199859 PF2028 Daugherty 73633 " Donnelly 324585 Grant has not ordered any of the major a la carte SNPs below M222, so we cannot tell where CTS8002 may lie in the tree. Gwinn is DF85-/DF97-, but he is carried as S660+ on Iain Kennedy's evolving M222 tree. Thus PF3292 lies below S660/S659/DF105. F3952 is already located on Iain's M222 tree. A McBride who is not a member of the R-M222 Project has tested positive for this SNP along with Mitchell. DePew is DF85- and DF105+. Thus Z70 lies below S550/S659/DF105. Kelleher has not tested any SNPs outside of the Geno2 process. CTS12173 is a potentially useful SNP that must be viewed with caution. As others have pointed out today, the position is derived in different major branches of the ChrY tree, and it may come and go within even a relatively compact branch like R=M222 and its synonyms. Still, I tend to think that if the marker can be stable for at least a few generations, it could be useful as a private or semi-private SNP. Of the 11 R-M222 Project members who are positive for this SNP, Morrow, Desertspring, Braswell, Haslett, and Crellin have not tested major structural SNPs below M222; Geno2 is their only source of downstream classification. Of the six others, Dexter is positive for S7073 and appears to belong to the FGC4077/4078 branch. Degnen, as Iain reported earlier, is positive for A259 and A260. This suggests that CTS12173 is equivalent to those SNPs or at least lies in their vicinity. But MacLennan, who is positive for S7814 and F1265, is also positive for CTS12173. This is illogical unless Howle and Degnen are also to be positioned below S588 (which may be the case: BigY is weak on the S588 branch). Davitt, however, is DF97+, which is completely inconsistent with other results. The same Mitchell who is F3952+ is also positive for CTS12173, which again points toward the S588 branch. Farrell has tested DF85-, which leaves both S660 and S588 open for associations. The picture is muddy and this SNP should perhaps be considered ambiguous. Daugherty is negative for DF86 and DF97, which pushes PF2028 up to the S660 level or on a collateral branch. Donnelly has done no SNP testing outside of the Geno2 chip. David Wilson

Dear David, Thanks for doing this. I began it earlier today after throwing my fit and was getting back in after dinner when this came in. One of the first ones I looked at was CTS8002; I hadn't found where Grant was derived. This SNP was on Chromo2 and every M222 file I saw was negative for it; I checked the CZ2000 file that includes members from our project among others as well as fellows from the British Isles; and all M222 were ancestral (negative) in that file, too. It makes me question Grant's result. It seems that this tree was based on Geno2 and the cut off date for cumulative SNP result information was quite some time ago. I really lost my faith that it was redeemable when I saw in multiple well SNPd individuals recommendations to test SNPs that these individuals had already tested negative for or couldn't possibly test positive for because the recommendation made no phylogenetic sense. It also seems that some SNPs they don't have a clue as to where they phylogenetically fit on the tree and just plunked them in. I sincerely hope that we don't waste any more time on it beyond waiving people off if there are questions. Personally, I am disregarding this tree; that shouldn't be much issue for anyone, really as we've been disregarding FTDNA's haplotree for years because it was out of date--even up-dated, it is still out of date seriously and has issues IMO. The L21 draft tree is more up to date even if it is a draft, at least it makes sense; the ISOGG tree seems more accurate than the FTDNA New Tree Roll out. All the haplogroups are working with the BIGY Data and in the process of integrating it with FGC results and Chromo2 results; I see very little value of this tree that seems to have SNPs traveling across the haplogroups, some maybe of private status, some as in CTS8002 as reported in Grant may be a bad call (and Geno2 was full of those if I remember correctly), etc. BTW, I saw some chatter earlier today that Dr. Michael Hammer will no longer concern himself with the Y chromosome stuff and is moving into medical--disease research. How accurate the chatter is, I don't know, but that is the chatter. Susan On 4/25/2014 9:32 PM, David Wilson wrote: > Eighteen of the 24 SNPs located beneath M222 in FTDNA's newly released > haplotree are not found among members of the R-M222 Project. I don't doubt > that there is evidence locating these SNPs where FTDNA puts them. The > individuals in whom the derived values of these SNPs are found may not have > transferred their Geno2 results to FTDNA, or the individuals may be members > of other Irish DNA Projects but not the R-M222 Project. The SNPs which are > not represented among the more than 1000 members of the R-M222 Project are: > >

Hello, I am the Farrell who FTDNA has now listed as CTS12173+ (N112356). However, I think perhaps the rather random assortment of men (based on their previous snp assignments) that have now been identified as CTS12173+ may be due to FTDNA/Geno2 misidentifying some of us. I looked up CTS12173 on YBrowse today and found that C is the ancestral nucleotide at this position and A is derived, which is odd since my Geno2 raw data, both the original file and the file I downloaded yesterday, indicates that I have the ancestral C nucleotide at this position. I’m not sure how this kind of mistake might happen but it seems fairly clear that I am not CTS12173+. Mike