On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote: > TAF, > > My mtDNA was tested at 23& for a value of haplogroup U a very ancient > type, At Ancestry, haplogroup H. At FTDNA, type H2, etc. > > Apparently, FTDNA revised their original agreement with type U based upon > later discovered SNPs, as Mitosearch has a few matches claiming to be U4 > with testing done by FTDNA, whereas FTDNA now has many matches for H2 > etc., apparently based upon newly discovered SNPs. > > So what is the relevance? No direct relevance unless you have a candidate line in mind that is not H2, in which case you have excluded that line as being ancestral to you and you need to go back to the drawing board. Still, this is a pretty broad grouping so a match is not a guarantee that you have the right line. Were you to do whole-mtDNA sequencing you could determine this with much higher precision. I don't want to minimize the curiosity factor, the intrigue in knowing things like: > The body of St. Luke in Padua, Italy tests H2 etc. [The body found in the tomb traditionally claimed to be that of St. Luke . . . - remember the last time they opened the tomb of the 'Princes in the Tower' and found that many of the bones weren't even human: given the avarice of the medieval relic-hunters, I have to express doubt that even were there once bones of St. Luke in the tomb, whether what remains represents what was originally buried there] > This is a worthwhile > comparison, as are those of Bourbon and Czarist monarchs, also type H. but such associations are fundamentally non-genealogical because the origin of H2 is long before the advent of historical documentation. taf