Barbara I agree with you that the hard part is determining the CA. But with more Matches being added each week, it should get better. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 7:21 PM, B Griffiths <ibgriffiths@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Jim, > > Thank you - yes, that's my view as well. And, in a few cases, I have > been able to find apparent "closer cousins", within a TG (based on the > additional DNA they share) although none of them have yet identified > their MRCA in order to narrow down the likely ancestral lines for the > rest of us in the TG. > > Finding a genealogical connection is much more difficult than building up TGs! > > Barbara > > > >> On 13 December 2015 at 22:18, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >> Barbara >> >> I believe all TGs are relavent - each segment of our DNA had to come from some Ancestor. The more Matches in a TG means the larger the family size from the CA and/or the more distant the CA. I think you are correct that some of our CAs are back before an immigrant to America. >> But there are also "intermediate" cousins that appear in a TG from time to time. In other words, all of the TG Matches aren't necessarily cousins back to the CA, some may be closer cousins. These closer cousins are the ones to look for - the MRCA with them may be a pointer to the distant CA. This is one reason why it's important to contact all Matches and share to find the individual MRCAs. >> >> Every TG is from some ancestor. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >> >>> On Dec 13, 2015, at 2:35 PM, B Griffiths via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Andreas >>> >>>> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >>>> groups? >>> >>> My largest group is 67 people matching me (and my mother) on >>> chromosome 8 within the area between 109000000 - 128000000. >>> >>> I would have done some cross checking when each of them initially >>> shared with me and most of them I have marked as cross matching, >>> although not everyone matches everyone else. I have just rechecked >>> two of them - one matches 62 of the group (this person matches me from >>> 109000000 - 126000000, 16.8cM), the other 50 (they match me from >>> 117000000 - 125000000, 10cM). >>> >>> Even the person with the smallest match to me in this area >>> (118000000-123000000, 5.3cM) matches 34 of the others, his longest >>> match to any of them being 15.5cM, over a segment 103000000 - >>> 123000000. >>> >>> I wish it were true that the large groups of 'people can "crowdsource" >>> together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can ' . >>> That had been my hope but, in most of my larger TGs, the majority of >>> the people match each other over just one segment and so all seem to >>> be equally distant from each other. Whereas the first match I had, >>> where we identified a common ancestor, was actually the only match on >>> that segment. I suspect (as I am in the UK), that the larger TGs are >>> where a distant ancestor emigrated (usually to the US) so long ago >>> that they now have many descendants, who just happen to be DNA tested. >>> >>> As to whether such groups class as "pile ups", I don't know - but if >>> you start discounting them as being too distant, what's the point of >>> triangulation? Where is the boundary between a "relevant" TG and a >>> "population based" TG? >>> >>> My working principle, for now, is that if people in the group cross >>> match, then the group is genuine/relevant. >>> Best wishes >>> Barbara Griffiths >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 December 2015 at 10:56, Andreas West via >>> <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what >>>> number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify >>>> pileups. >>>> >>>> We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 >>>> 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why >>>> DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify >>>> pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a >>>> single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber >>>> algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. >>>> >>>> a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" >>>> chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 >>>> combinations. Is that number already a pileup? >>>> >>>> How about: >>>> >>>> b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations >>>> >>>> c) 36 matches = 630 combinations >>>> >>>> d) 23 matches = 253 combinations >>>> >>>> e) 18 matches = 153 combinations >>>> >>>> Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? >>>> >>>> >>>> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >>>> groups? >>>> >>>> We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of >>>> people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a >>>> group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). >>>> >>>> Thanks for your answers! >>>> >>>> Andreas (WEST) born BASSO >>>> >>>> My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- >>>> Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jim, I am loving your segmentology blog more and more. :-) Have you ever done checks for high levels of heterozygosity and/or no-calls in the places you have pileups? Note: Though I am employed by the Gene by Gene parent company of Family Tree DNA, my opinion above is strictly my own as a community member. --- Regards, Rebekah A. Canada "And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade." Trees (Neil Peart from Rush) On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Barbara > > I believe all TGs are relavent - each segment of our DNA had to come from some Ancestor. The more Matches in a TG means the larger the family size from the CA and/or the more distant the CA. I think you are correct that some of our CAs are back before an immigrant to America. > But there are also "intermediate" cousins that appear in a TG from time to time. In other words, all of the TG Matches aren't necessarily cousins back to the CA, some may be closer cousins. These closer cousins are the ones to look for - the MRCA with them may be a pointer to the distant CA. This is one reason why it's important to contact all Matches and share to find the individual MRCAs. > > Every TG is from some ancestor. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 13, 2015, at 2:35 PM, B Griffiths via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Andreas >> >>> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >>> groups? >> >> My largest group is 67 people matching me (and my mother) on >> chromosome 8 within the area between 109000000 - 128000000. >> >> I would have done some cross checking when each of them initially >> shared with me and most of them I have marked as cross matching, >> although not everyone matches everyone else. I have just rechecked >> two of them - one matches 62 of the group (this person matches me from >> 109000000 - 126000000, 16.8cM), the other 50 (they match me from >> 117000000 - 125000000, 10cM). >> >> Even the person with the smallest match to me in this area >> (118000000-123000000, 5.3cM) matches 34 of the others, his longest >> match to any of them being 15.5cM, over a segment 103000000 - >> 123000000. >> >> I wish it were true that the large groups of 'people can "crowdsource" >> together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can ' . >> That had been my hope but, in most of my larger TGs, the majority of >> the people match each other over just one segment and so all seem to >> be equally distant from each other. Whereas the first match I had, >> where we identified a common ancestor, was actually the only match on >> that segment. I suspect (as I am in the UK), that the larger TGs are >> where a distant ancestor emigrated (usually to the US) so long ago >> that they now have many descendants, who just happen to be DNA tested. >> >> As to whether such groups class as "pile ups", I don't know - but if >> you start discounting them as being too distant, what's the point of >> triangulation? Where is the boundary between a "relevant" TG and a >> "population based" TG? >> >> My working principle, for now, is that if people in the group cross >> match, then the group is genuine/relevant. >> Best wishes >> Barbara Griffiths >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 December 2015 at 10:56, Andreas West via >> <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what >>> number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify >>> pileups. >>> >>> We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 >>> 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why >>> DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify >>> pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a >>> single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber >>> algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. >>> >>> a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" >>> chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 >>> combinations. Is that number already a pileup? >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations >>> >>> c) 36 matches = 630 combinations >>> >>> d) 23 matches = 253 combinations >>> >>> e) 18 matches = 153 combinations >>> >>> Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? >>> >>> >>> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >>> groups? >>> >>> We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of >>> people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a >>> group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). >>> >>> Thanks for your answers! >>> >>> Andreas (WEST) born BASSO >>> >>> My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- >>> Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Andreas > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > groups? My largest group is 67 people matching me (and my mother) on chromosome 8 within the area between 109000000 - 128000000. I would have done some cross checking when each of them initially shared with me and most of them I have marked as cross matching, although not everyone matches everyone else. I have just rechecked two of them - one matches 62 of the group (this person matches me from 109000000 - 126000000, 16.8cM), the other 50 (they match me from 117000000 - 125000000, 10cM). Even the person with the smallest match to me in this area (118000000-123000000, 5.3cM) matches 34 of the others, his longest match to any of them being 15.5cM, over a segment 103000000 - 123000000. I wish it were true that the large groups of 'people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can ' . That had been my hope but, in most of my larger TGs, the majority of the people match each other over just one segment and so all seem to be equally distant from each other. Whereas the first match I had, where we identified a common ancestor, was actually the only match on that segment. I suspect (as I am in the UK), that the larger TGs are where a distant ancestor emigrated (usually to the US) so long ago that they now have many descendants, who just happen to be DNA tested. As to whether such groups class as "pile ups", I don't know - but if you start discounting them as being too distant, what's the point of triangulation? Where is the boundary between a "relevant" TG and a "population based" TG? My working principle, for now, is that if people in the group cross match, then the group is genuine/relevant. Best wishes Barbara Griffiths On 13 December 2015 at 10:56, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what > number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify > pileups. > > We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 > 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why > DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify > pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a > single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber > algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. > > a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" > chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 > combinations. Is that number already a pileup? > > How about: > > b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations > > c) 36 matches = 630 combinations > > d) 23 matches = 253 combinations > > e) 18 matches = 153 combinations > > Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > groups? > > We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of > people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a > group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). > > Thanks for your answers! > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I saw only a hint of addressing the issue of whether the pileups were from multiple persons matching the writer only vs multiple persons matching each other.  Also the issue of whether those non-matches could be explained by an offset of where they match the writer.  I've written multiple times that my sis and I have pileups with >~260 and >~180 respectively at c20 from 17M to 50M for my sis and c18 from 8M to 24M for me.  And they all match each other there subject to their being in the same part of the subsegment.  OTOH I have pileups with only <~15 matches for which only ~1 pair match each other there.  I also have pileups where the persons at the edge of the segment don't match anyone else there but they do match one of the others elsewhere and they match essentially no one else on my list anywhere.  IMO all the posited mechanisms to explain the matching events as IBS are just BS instead with no I.  IMO the only possible mechanism is that the tables for cM vs geno! me site are wrong so even though it is said that it's a match from 17M to 50M =33M wide for my sis, the reality is that for some subgroup it's only ~5cM wide. Multiple writers wrote Subject: Re: [DNA] At what number of matches (at the same loci) are we talking about a pileup?

Another way to look at this is that the number of our Matches is about doubling every 14 months. So 14 months from now each TG will have twice as many Matches. Some may look like pileups, but they are just growing TGs as more Matches are reported. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what > number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify > pileups. > > We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 > 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why > DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify > pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a > single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber > algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. > > a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" > chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 > combinations. Is that number already a pileup? > > How about: > > b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations > > c) 36 matches = 630 combinations > > d) 23 matches = 253 combinations > > e) 18 matches = 153 combinations > > Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > groups? > > We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of > people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a > group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). > > Thanks for your answers! > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > >

These are nearly all from 23andMe, matching on just one segment. Since my grandmother's Finnish ancestors arrived in Norway around 1600, and Finns are an endogamous population, chances of determining a MRCA for very many of these matches is fairly slim. On the bright side, wherever my family matches Finns the chances are good that this is through my Hedmark great-grandmother (who has the known Finnish ancestry) rather than through her husband, although as Finns settled in many parts of Sweden and Norway, Finnish ancestry cannot be ruled out for any of my Norwegian immigrant ancestors. Karla On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > Thanks Karla, that information is very useful for me (and surprising). I > wouldn't have thought that one has a TG that large. > > Good that you stopped comparing everyone with everyone, with 35 matches > these are 595 One-to-One on atDNA and the same number on X-DNA. > > Hope you will one day identify the common ancestor or at least get it down > to a location > > Thanks again, > > Andreas > > On 13 Dec 2015, at 22:16, Karla Huebner <calypsospots@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have a group of 35 on chromosome 6 starting around 87,000,00 and ending > around 99,000,000 in terms of where they match my brother and me. I used to > check each one against everyone else in the group, but quit and now just > check against several in the group to triangulate.The people who match are > from the US, UK, and Australia (so initially I expected this to be on my > mother's side), and some have a preponderance of colonial ancestry. > > Once I was able to confirm that this is a segment from my paternal > grandmother (testing one of her nieces, who is half Norwegian and half > Swedish), I formed the hypothesis that this is an old bit of Finnish DNA. > Why? My grandmother's parents were both Norwegian, but one has proved to > have substantial Forest Finn ancestry, causing us to match a lot of Finns. > Finns went to Delaware a couple hundred years ago, so I think that probably > explains the colonial US aspect. > > The other possibility is that my brother's and my having two Norwegian > grandmothers, and our relative being half Norwegian and half Swedish, could > cause us to match in miscellaneous ways with a lot of people (IBS), but as > the matches triangulate well with others on their part of the segment > (these people match us around 7-8 cM apiece), I'm inclined to think it is a > scrap of IBD old Finnish. > > -- > Karla Huebner > calypsospots AT gmail.com > > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

Thank you everyone for your insight! I ran some more comparisons of my raw data files AncestryDNA vs 23andme: 1). I had only 4 RSIDs that began with an 'i' that had a real RS number on my AncestryDNA file. 2). I had 108 RSIDs that appear to not match on the SNP pairs between Ancestry and 23andme. Perhaps they could be labeled mis-calls? 3). I had a total of 7646 no-calls on autosomal chromosomes for RSIDs that appear both on AncestryDNA and 23andme 4). I had a total of 11,779 no-calls on 23andme autosomal chromosomes. I had 21,893 if you include the X, Y, and Mt. 5). I had a total of 7,798 no calls on Ancestry DNA autosomal chromosomes. I should be able to fix my no-calls for both 23andme and AncestryDNA. David **************************************************************************** * Dear David, DD means a deletion and II means an insertion. The "i" SNPs in the 23andMe files are those that don't have rs numbers assigned to them by 23andMe. It is possible that "i" stands for Illumina, but I am not certain about that. It is also possible that it stands for "inserted", possibly because 23andMe inserted these SNPs onto the SNP chip because they were of special interest to 23andMe. Someone at 23andMe would know the answer to this question. It is interesting that AncestryDNA files don't have SNPs with the allele values AT. I don't have a definite answer for that. I checked my mom's file for the SNPs that have the allele values AT in 23andMe and found a total of 322 of these SNPs. I then checked for these SNPs in my mom's AncestryDNA file and I couldn't find any of those SNPs in my mom's AncestryDNA file. My suspicion is that Ancestry.com has dropped all SNPs from their dataset with the values AT because they think that the results may be erroneous. Sincerely, Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Schroeder via Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:33 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] My Raw Data Files - Comparison 23andme vs AncestryDNA I have tested at both 23andme (V3) and AncestryDNA. I have written a program to add the raw data file information into a MySQL database, creating separate tables for my 23andme results and my AncestryDNA. I am trying to understand some things. I can understand all the A, C, G, T lettering. The single letters represent SNPs on my Y and X chromosomes. I also understand that '--' is a no call. What are 'DD' and 'II'? I also found that AncestryDNA had no 'AT' SNPs for me, but 23andme had 611: Can anyone explain why I have no 'AT' SNP pairs in my AncestryDNA raw data file? I verified this by browsing my Ancestry Raw data file. I had every other SNP pair represented. The final question is about RSIDs. What are the ones that begin with 'i' in my 23andme raw data file? I have 10,709 RSIDs that begin with 'i-----'. David

Barbara I believe all TGs are relavent - each segment of our DNA had to come from some Ancestor. The more Matches in a TG means the larger the family size from the CA and/or the more distant the CA. I think you are correct that some of our CAs are back before an immigrant to America. But there are also "intermediate" cousins that appear in a TG from time to time. In other words, all of the TG Matches aren't necessarily cousins back to the CA, some may be closer cousins. These closer cousins are the ones to look for - the MRCA with them may be a pointer to the distant CA. This is one reason why it's important to contact all Matches and share to find the individual MRCAs. Every TG is from some ancestor. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 2:35 PM, B Griffiths via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello Andreas > >> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >> groups? > > My largest group is 67 people matching me (and my mother) on > chromosome 8 within the area between 109000000 - 128000000. > > I would have done some cross checking when each of them initially > shared with me and most of them I have marked as cross matching, > although not everyone matches everyone else. I have just rechecked > two of them - one matches 62 of the group (this person matches me from > 109000000 - 126000000, 16.8cM), the other 50 (they match me from > 117000000 - 125000000, 10cM). > > Even the person with the smallest match to me in this area > (118000000-123000000, 5.3cM) matches 34 of the others, his longest > match to any of them being 15.5cM, over a segment 103000000 - > 123000000. > > I wish it were true that the large groups of 'people can "crowdsource" > together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can ' . > That had been my hope but, in most of my larger TGs, the majority of > the people match each other over just one segment and so all seem to > be equally distant from each other. Whereas the first match I had, > where we identified a common ancestor, was actually the only match on > that segment. I suspect (as I am in the UK), that the larger TGs are > where a distant ancestor emigrated (usually to the US) so long ago > that they now have many descendants, who just happen to be DNA tested. > > As to whether such groups class as "pile ups", I don't know - but if > you start discounting them as being too distant, what's the point of > triangulation? Where is the boundary between a "relevant" TG and a > "population based" TG? > > My working principle, for now, is that if people in the group cross > match, then the group is genuine/relevant. > Best wishes > Barbara Griffiths > > > > > > On 13 December 2015 at 10:56, Andreas West via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what >> number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify >> pileups. >> >> We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 >> 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why >> DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify >> pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a >> single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber >> algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. >> >> a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" >> chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 >> combinations. Is that number already a pileup? >> >> How about: >> >> b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations >> >> c) 36 matches = 630 combinations >> >> d) 23 matches = 253 combinations >> >> e) 18 matches = 153 combinations >> >> Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? >> >> >> What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated >> groups? >> >> We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of >> people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a >> group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). >> >> Thanks for your answers! >> >> Andreas (WEST) born BASSO >> >> My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- >> Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Tim and yes, I have two phased sets for each of my parents at GEDmatch. Let us all be thankful for them providing the tools that all those multi-million (or even billion) companies are not giving us. Also good to hear that you agree with my points. Do I understand your "disagree" with the ADSA tool documentation (the statement I posted) as that you agree with me that it's misleading and can't be done with FTDNA data? Andreas > On 13 Dec 2015, at 15:12, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Andreas, > > I agree with you that simply having your matches match each other using the > ICW tool doesn't necessarily mean that they triangulate. I agree with you > that most of the small 1 and 2 cMs HIRs are IBS and therefore even if people > match on them then this doesn't mean that this represents a DNA segment that > was passed down from a shared ancestor. I disagree with the DNAGEDCOM > statement about use of the ICW data. The data will likely triangulate most > of the time, but certainly not 100% of the time, particularly for people who > come from endogamous populations. I have suggested to Family Tree DNA that > they should allow their customers to be able to compare their matches to > each other like we can in 23andMe with the Family Inheritance: Advanced > tool, but so far FTDNA has chosen not to allow that feature. I wish that > they would at least create it as an opt in feature. I have advocated with > both 23andMe and Family Tree DNA for at least 4 years to generate matches > based on family phased data, but so far neither company has invested the > time and effort to do that. Ancestry.com generates phased data, but the > data is not 100% accurate because they don't use family data to generate > phased data. As you mentioned, the lack of a chromosome browser at Ancestry. > com dramatically reduces the utility of the AncestryDNA test. GEDmatch will > generate phased data for you and will allow you to upload your own phased > data if you would like to do that. One of the main reasons that GEDmatch is > so popular is because it provides the serious autosomal genetic genealogist > with the tools they need to run the kinds of comparisons they need to run. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Janzen > > > > From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 11:27 PM > To: Tim Janzen; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Are FTDNA's 1cM matches shown in ICW as well? > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > thanks for taking the time to answer. What I meant is that just using the > ICW tool with your two matches B and C (without asking B and C where they > match each other) is not triangulation to me. > > > > It might be semantics but to me it's more. > > > > Given that the ICW that FTDNA is showing between B and C can only be 1cM or > 2cM large, even IF it's on the same loci (which is unknown without asking > one of them AND getting that information) does it mean it's 100% a > triangulated group → meaning it comes from a common ancestor? > > > > For me it's not. But that's what is stated in that WikiTree answer and also > partially in the documentation of the ADSA tool. I quote from here: > https://www.dnagedcom.com/adsa/adsamanual.html.php > > > > "The Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer (ADSA) is a tool that takes your data > from Family Tree DNA or GEDMATCH and constructs tables that include match > and segment information as well as a visual graph of overlapping segments, > juxtaposed with a customized, color-coded In-Common-With (ICW) matrix that > will permit you to triangulate matching segments without having to look in > multiple spreadsheets or on different web pages." > > > > "will permit you to triangulate matching segments"!!!! > > > > It uses both ICE and triangulate in the same sentence, giving the impression > that it's possible to do with FTDNA's data (please note I'm not saying the > ADSA tool can't do it, it's not possible with the data it receives as > input). It's IMO (unless you get that B and C match data as mentioned, which > can't be downloaded and imported in the ADSA tool BTW) not possible. > > > > So I think this is highly misleading and supports the confusion when people > assume that: > > > > ICW = triangulation > > > > which is unfortunately not true. There is a likelihood (eg A, B and C all > match at the same loci with 20+cM matches between each other - surely coming > from a common ancestor) but like I mention given that FTDNA shows 1cM > matches as ICW (which was my original question) I think we all agree that > the jury is still out if this is indeed an ancestral segment verified by > triangulation (see the following example): > > > > A matches B at loci for 5cM > > A matches C at loci for 5cM > > B matches C at unknown loci for 1cM > > > > We could even replace the 5cM with a longer 7cM segment. Is that more likely > to be? Yes. Is it 100% proven? No. > > > > What we're missing here is phased genotyped data, as mentioned in this blog > post: > http://ourpuzzlingpast.com/geneblog/2015/01/31/chromosome-pile-ups-in-geneti > c-genealogy-examples-from-23andme-and-ftdna/ > > > > > > Lastly, what I don't want to express or start again is a discussion about > the need for a better tool or how grateful we are to have at least this one > (compared to no tool at Ancestry). That's discussed to death already. > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I discuss several kinds of pile-ups in a blogpost called Pileups. Some are good ones with segments over 9cM, and the pileup comes from many cousins from large families and/or distant Common Ancestors. They tend to cover TGs over 12cM. Some are smaller than 5cM and have been noted to occur in specific areas for many of us - there is an ISOGG/wiki that notes a dozen or so known areas. Some of us have noted some very "tight" areas, maybe 9cM wide with 100 or more 7-8cM segments that don't triangulate. These appear to be unique to individuals and occur at different areas for each person. These segments don't triangulate and are IBS. I don't think AncestryDNA has revealed which of these categories they find and delete pileup segments. My concern is that some pileups appear to be IBD and real TGs from a CA. The pileup term is being used in different situations. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > Thank you for sharing your experience. > > I have to correct one assumption in your post though. Not all people share the same pile ups. > > The person I talked about in my post is of Asian origin and she has pileups at different loci whereas she is missing the typical chromosome 2 Western Atlantic Autosomal Haplotype (WAAH) that most of us have. > > Andreas > >> On 13 Dec 2015, at 22:30, David Hamill via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I thought I would share my experience with a pile-up because it was instructive for me. >> >> I was building a triangulation group and started getting suspicious because too many people matched the segment. I apologize for forgetting the details here. By too many I mean something like 25% of the people on gedmatch when I did 1-1 comparisons with kits I suspected of being matches. I was looking at a relatively short segment (3-4cM?) so all these matches didn’t show up in the standard one-to-many search. I remembered the “pile-up” phenomenon and though I didn’t actually know what it was, it sounded like it might be an explanation of what was going on. I started checking kits totally at random and found a similar high frequency of matches. >> >> Researching Pile-ups I found that it refers to the phenominum where the percentage of people that have a particular segment is unreasonable based on any possible relatedness. The plausible explanation is that this genetic combination is favored by natural selection. >> >> Next I just looked for articles on pile-ups, and sure enough, the area where my too-frequent matches occurred was one that had been identified in several studies as one where these “pile-ups” are found. >> >> The point here is that pile-ups are not an aspect of ones particular group of matches but occur at the same places for everyone. I don’t know of a central compendium of pile-up areas that have been identified, but it would be nice if there was one. >> >> Maybe one quick and dirty way to see if a segment that appears to match for too many relatives is the result of a pile up, would be to see if it occurs in a similar frequency in both our relatives and kits selected at random…. Thats what tipped me off. >> >> In terms of the argument that it is caused by natural select

Fun thread, thanks for posting On my Dad's Norwegian side: My largest TG is 40 people on chr 9 from 80 to 87/90 for me and my Dad which appears to be ancient DNA of some sort, mainly Russian matches, some Polish, some Danish, a few AJ. No possibility of finding a common ancestor that I can see. Then I have a TG of 30 people, for my brother and Dad, clearly on my WOLD line from the Drammen area, from 45 to 55/67 chr 2, MRCA not yet found and another TG of 20+ of Finnish DNA on chr 10 from 37/44 to 53/54 for Dad and my brother unlikely to find over on my maternal Ashkenazi side there are more pileups than I can list! Kitty --------------------------------------------------------------- Kitty Munson Cooper, web developer,programmer, San Diego,CA genetic genealogy blog at http://blog.kittycooper.com/ family history and genealogy at http://kittymunson.com On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, B Griffiths via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello Andreas > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > > groups? > > My largest group is 67 people matching me (and my mother) on > chromosome 8 within the area between 109000000 - 128000000. > > I would have done some cross checking when each of them initially > shared with me and most of them I have marked as cross matching, > although not everyone matches everyone else. I have just rechecked > two of them - one matches 62 of the group (this person matches me from > 109000000 - 126000000, 16.8cM), the other 50 (they match me from > 117000000 - 125000000, 10cM). > > Even the person with the smallest match to me in this area > (118000000-123000000, 5.3cM) matches 34 of the others, his longest > match to any of them being 15.5cM, over a segment 103000000 - > 123000000. > > I wish it were true that the large groups of 'people can "crowdsource" > together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can ' . > That had been my hope but, in most of my larger TGs, the majority of > the people match each other over just one segment and so all seem to > be equally distant from each other. Whereas the first match I had, > where we identified a common ancestor, was actually the only match on > that segment. I suspect (as I am in the UK), that the larger TGs are > where a distant ancestor emigrated (usually to the US) so long ago > that they now have many descendants, who just happen to be DNA tested. > > As to whether such groups class as "pile ups", I don't know - but if > you start discounting them as being too distant, what's the point of > triangulation? Where is the boundary between a "relevant" TG and a > "population based" TG? > > My working principle, for now, is that if people in the group cross > match, then the group is genuine/relevant. > Best wishes > Barbara Griffiths > > > > > > On 13 December 2015 at 10:56, Andreas West via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even > what > > number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify > > pileups. > > > > We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 > > 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main > reason why > > DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify > > pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not > find a > > single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the > Timber > > algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. > > > > a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" > > chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 > > combinations. Is that number already a pileup? > > > > How about: > > > > b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations > > > > c) 36 matches = 630 combinations > > > > d) 23 matches = 253 combinations > > > > e) 18 matches = 153 combinations > > > > Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? > > > > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > > groups? > > > > We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of > > people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a > > group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). > > > > Thanks for your answers! > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 13 Dec 2015, at 22:16, Karla Huebner wrote: > I have a group of 35 on chromosome 6 starting around 87,000,000 > and ending around 99,000,000 <snipped> On 14 Dec 2015 Andreas West replied: > Thanks Karla, that information is very useful for me (and > surprising). I wouldn't have thought that one has a TG that large. That's small!! On C1 my wife has a "pile-up" TG from 63,000,000 to 108,000,000. It currently contains 172 matches over 7 cM, with the largest (an adoptee) being 44 cM. It appears to have a Scottish origin, but so far we have not discovered any connections. BTW, my wife does have part Colonial American ancestry and many of these matches appear to be via it. Cheers! -- Dave -- David Naylor, Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada. HARTRUM/HOTRUM One-Name-Study See the HARTRUM/HOTRUM Family Tree at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hotrum / ---

Dear Andreas, I agree with you that the ADSA tool documentation statement is misleading. I think it should be rewritten to more accurately state what the ICW data does reflect. Sincerely, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:39 AM To: Tim Janzen; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Are FTDNA's 1cM matches shown in ICW as well? Thanks Tim and yes, I have two phased sets for each of my parents at GEDmatch. Let us all be thankful for them providing the tools that all those multi-million (or even billion) companies are not giving us. Also good to hear that you agree with my points. Do I understand your "disagree" with the ADSA tool documentation (the statement I posted) as that you agree with me that it's misleading and can't be done with FTDNA data? Andreas

Hi everyone, I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify pileups. We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 combinations. Is that number already a pileup? How about: b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations c) 36 matches = 630 combinations d) 23 matches = 253 combinations e) 18 matches = 153 combinations Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated groups? We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). Thanks for your answers! Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23)

I thought I would share my experience with a pile-up because it was instructive for me. I was building a triangulation group and started getting suspicious because too many people matched the segment. I apologize for forgetting the details here. By too many I mean something like 25% of the people on gedmatch when I did 1-1 comparisons with kits I suspected of being matches. I was looking at a relatively short segment (3-4cM?) so all these matches didn’t show up in the standard one-to-many search. I remembered the “pile-up” phenomenon and though I didn’t actually know what it was, it sounded like it might be an explanation of what was going on. I started checking kits totally at random and found a similar high frequency of matches. Researching Pile-ups I found that it refers to the phenominum where the percentage of people that have a particular segment is unreasonable based on any possible relatedness. The plausible explanation is that this genetic combination is favored by natural selection. Next I just looked for articles on pile-ups, and sure enough, the area where my too-frequent matches occurred was one that had been identified in several studies as one where these “pile-ups” are found. The point here is that pile-ups are not an aspect of ones particular group of matches but occur at the same places for everyone. I don’t know of a central compendium of pile-up areas that have been identified, but it would be nice if there was one. Maybe one quick and dirty way to see if a segment that appears to match for too many relatives is the result of a pile up, would be to see if it occurs in a similar frequency in both our relatives and kits selected at random…. Thats what tipped me off. In terms of the argument that it is caused by natural selection, what makes sense to me is that people for whom this area gets recombined due to crossovers are at a disadvantage (less likely to survive or reproduce) compared to people for home this region is intact. After all our DNA does have a job to do! David PS Of course just ignoring short segments in my case, I would have avoided the issue. I think what happened was I started with a few matches for a segment that included the pile-up area, and started looking for kits with related surnames who I thought might have a short piece of the same segment. And too many did….. > On Dec 13, 2015, at 8:26 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:56:24 -0000 > From: Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> > Subject: [DNA] At what number of matches (at the same loci) are we > talking about a pileup? > To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > <hJSp0t3pb-zqwGRIfEOeuWFWvSJGGA9D-CxJbhscXGdALUpl0@smtp.1und1.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Hi everyone, > > I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what > number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify > pileups. > > We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 > 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason why > DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify > pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not find a > single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the Timber > algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. > > a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" > chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 > combinations. Is that number already a pileup? > > How about: > > b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations > > c) 36 matches = 630 combinations > > d) 23 matches = 253 combinations > > e) 18 matches = 153 combinations > > Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > groups? > > We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of > people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a > group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). > > Thanks for your answers! > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23)

I have a group of 35 on chromosome 6 starting around 87,000,00 and ending around 99,000,000 in terms of where they match my brother and me. I used to check each one against everyone else in the group, but quit and now just check against several in the group to triangulate.The people who match are from the US, UK, and Australia (so initially I expected this to be on my mother's side), and some have a preponderance of colonial ancestry. Once I was able to confirm that this is a segment from my paternal grandmother (testing one of her nieces, who is half Norwegian and half Swedish), I formed the hypothesis that this is an old bit of Finnish DNA. Why? My grandmother's parents were both Norwegian, but one has proved to have substantial Forest Finn ancestry, causing us to match a lot of Finns. Finns went to Delaware a couple hundred years ago, so I think that probably explains the colonial US aspect. The other possibility is that my brother's and my having two Norwegian grandmothers, and our relative being half Norwegian and half Swedish, could cause us to match in miscellaneous ways with a lot of people (IBS), but as the matches triangulate well with others on their part of the segment (these people match us around 7-8 cM apiece), I'm inclined to think it is a scrap of IBD old Finnish. On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Andreas West via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hope we can find some consensus here and maybe some of you know even what > number (of matches at a certain loci) is used by AncestryDNA to identify > pileups. > > We're obviously not talking about 1000 here as that would give us 499500 > 1-to-1 comparisons to run between the 1000 matches. That's the main reason > why > DTC DNA testing companies (and also GEDmatch) are interested to identify > pileups to limit useless calculations (which in the end will still not > find a > single triangulated group (maybe) or it's too far back anyway, see the > Timber > algorithm used by AncestrDNA to cut matches. > > a) I have 97 matches (at the same loci) for one of my kits (at the "X" > chromosome interestingly, it's a female person), which means 4656 > combinations. Is that number already a pileup? > > How about: > > b) 52 matches = 1326 combinations > > c) 36 matches = 630 combinations > > d) 23 matches = 253 combinations > > e) 18 matches = 153 combinations > > Where is the line to draw? At a, b, c, d, e or where? > > > What is the largest number of matches that you have in your triangulated > groups? > > We obviously don't want to miss out a large TG as it also means a lot of > people can "crowdsource" together and identify the CA much quicker than a > group of 3 can (usually means also more family trees to compare with). > > Thanks for your answers! > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- > Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

The short answer to your subject is No. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 13, 2015, at 12:40 AM, Andreas West via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > was just stumbling across a post on WikiTree forum on DNAGedcom being able to > triangulate data from GEDmatch and FTDNA. Leaving GEDmatch out for this thread > (I think the OP refers to the paid tier 1 option which gives access to the top > 200 triangulated matches and downloading that screen result - please correct > me if there is another way) I want to question that remark about FTDNA. > > My assumption is that ICW (which isn't triangulation, can't repeat that often > enough as there are still people out there who don't understand the difference > or that there is one to start with) means that it includes all those 1cM > matches (and larger) that FTDNA reports as a minimum criteria. > > Can someone confirm this? > > That makes the ICW tool even more worrisome if it's true as it's not even > clear if a triangulated segment of only 1cM (or 2cM for that matter) is indeed > an ancestral segment, triangulation or not (I refer to various discussions we > had here and on other email lists about this - no need to start that > discussion again until we have more proof). > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO >

Hi Andreas, No one appears on your match list that does not match or exceed the minimum match criteria at Family Tree DNA, which is currently 20cM total and 7cM for an individual segment. If someone does not match both criteria, they will not be on your match list and they will now show on the ICW list either. IF you match at or above that level, you can see your matching cM down to 1cM to any individual. The ICW page is just another way to see your matches. No one will appear on your ICW list that does not already appear on your match list. Roberta Estes -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Andreas West via Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 12:40 AM To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List Subject: [DNA] Are FTDNA's 1cM matches shown in ICW as well? Hi everyone, was just stumbling across a post on WikiTree forum on DNAGedcom being able to triangulate data from GEDmatch and FTDNA. Leaving GEDmatch out for this thread (I think the OP refers to the paid tier 1 option which gives access to the top 200 triangulated matches and downloading that screen result - please correct me if there is another way) I want to question that remark about FTDNA. My assumption is that ICW (which isn't triangulation, can't repeat that often enough as there are still people out there who don't understand the difference or that there is one to start with) means that it includes all those 1cM matches (and larger) that FTDNA reports as a minimum criteria. Can someone confirm this? That makes the ICW tool even more worrisome if it's true as it's not even clear if a triangulated segment of only 1cM (or 2cM for that matter) is indeed an ancestral segment, triangulation or not (I refer to various discussions we had here and on other email lists about this - no need to start that discussion again until we have more proof). Andreas (WEST) born BASSO My ancestors: [http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family- Tree-23](http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Basso-Family-Tree-23) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

List And the remaining 29 sequences. Ian (www.ianlogan.co.uk -------------------- KT213801(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213802(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213803(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M70 08-DEC-2015 A73G T236C A263G 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G C3107N A4769G C7028T A8679G A8701G A8860G T8867C C9297T T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T C14766T T14783C G15043A A15061G G15148A G15301A A15326G C16214T C16223T T16297C T16342C T16381C KT213804(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213805(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C15658T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213806(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213807(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213808(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213809(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213810(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213811(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213812(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213813(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213814(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213815(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213816(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213817(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213818(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G 309.1C T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213819(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213820(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M9a1a1c 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G 315.1C T489C T711C A750G A1041G A1438G A2706G C3107N T3394C G4491A A4769G 5899.1C 5899.2C C7028T T7142C A7166G G7697A A8701G A8860G A9242G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T T14308C A14417G C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G C16223T C16234T T16311C A16316G T16362C T16519C KT213821(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213822(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213823(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213824(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213825(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213826(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213827(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T C11398T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213828(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213829(Tibet) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G C151T T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C

List And 30 more sequences. Ian (www.ianlogan.co.uk) ------------ KT213771(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T T16311C G16319A T16362C KT213772(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213773(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M70 08-DEC-2015 A73G T236C A263G 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G A2706G C3107N A4769G C7028T A8679G A8701G A8860G T8867C C9297T T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T C14766T T14783C G15043A A15061G G15148A G15301A A15326G C16214T C16223T T16297C T16342C T16381C KT213774(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213775(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213776(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213777(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G 315.1C T489C A750G A1438G C1715T 2232.1A 2232.2A A2706G C3107N T3552A C3576T A4715G A4769G A4884G A4958G G6026A C7028T C7196A T7999C A8508G G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G A10398G C10400T G10775A T10873C G11719A G11914A G11969A A12672G C12705T A13263G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T T15968C T16093C T16117C G16129A C16223T T16298C C16327T T16519C KT213778(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213779(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M9a1a1c 08-DEC-2015 A73G T217C A263G 309.1C 315.1C T489C T711C A750G A1041G A1438G A2706G C3107N T3394C G4491A A4769G 5899.1C C7028T T7142C G7697A A8701G A8860G A9242G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12705T T14308C C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G T16093C C16223T C16234T A16316G T16362C KT213780(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213781(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213782(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M9a1b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G C150T T152C A153G A263G 315.1C T489C G709A A750G A1041G A1438G A2706G C3107N T3394C G4491A A4769G C7028T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12362T C12705T T14308C C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G A15671G T16093C A16158G C16223T C16234T T16362C T16519C KT213783(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213784(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup D4j1b 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T489C A750G A1438G C1734T A2706G G3010A C3107N T4639C A4769G C4883T C5178A C7028T A7055G C8414T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11696A G11719A C12705T C14668T C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G C16223T T16362C KT213785(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup M9a1b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G C150T T152C A153G A263G 315.1C T489C G709A A750G A1041G A1438G A2706G C3107N T3394C G4491A A4769G C7028T A8701G A8860G T9540C A10398G C10400T T10873C G11719A C12362T C12705T T14308C C14766T T14783C G15043A G15301A A15326G A15671G T16093C A16158G C16223T C16234T T16362C T16519C KT213786(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213787(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213788(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213789(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213790(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213791(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A153G A235G 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2582G A2706G C3107N T4248C A4769G A4824G G6324A C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213792(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213793(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213794(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213795(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G 309.1C 315.1C A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C KT213796(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T A16037G C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213797(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T T16311C G16319A T16362C KT213798(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T A16037G C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213799(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup C4a3b1 08-DEC-2015 A73G A263G T310C T489C A750G A1438G C1677T 2232.1A A2706G T2887C C3107N T3552A G3745A T4696C A4715G A4769G 5899.1C G6026A C7028T C7196A G8584A A8701G A8860G T9540C A9545G T10304C A10398G C10400T T10873C C11155T G11719A G11914A G11969A T12624C A12672G C12705T A13263G A13563G T14318C C14766T T14783C G15043A T15204C G15301A A15326G A15487T C16223T T16298C T16311C C16327T T16357C T16519C KT213800(Nepal) Bhandari Haplogroup A15c1 08-DEC-2015 A73G T152C A235G A663G A750G A1438G A1736G A2706G C3107N T4216C T4248C A4769G A4824G C7028T A8459G C8794T A8860G A9052G G11719A C12705T T13111C C14067T C14766T T15262C A15326G A15924G C16223T C16290T G16319A T16362C