Some nice charts and tables in this brief article. Table 3 shows a comparison of surname analysis for Spain to Britain and Ireland. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v24/n1/pdf/ejhg201575a.pdf European Journal of Human Genetics (2016) 24, 120–128; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.75; published online 22 April 2015 Conrado Martinez-Cadenas1,2, Alejandro Blanco-Verea3, Barbara Hernando1, George BJ Busby2,4, Maria Brion3, Angel Carracedo3,5,6, Antonio Salas6 and Cristian Capelli2 1Department of Medicine, Jaume I University of Castellon, Castellon, Spain 2Human Evolutionary Genetics Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 3Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Grupo de Medicina Xenómica, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain 4Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, UK 5Center of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 6Unidade de Xenética, Departamento de Anatomía Patolóxica e Ciencias Forenses, Instituto de Ciencias Forenses, Facultade de Medicina, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Correspondence: Dr C Capelli, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. Tel: +44 1865 271261; Fax: +44 1865 310447; E-mail:cristian.capelli@zoo.ox.ac.uk Received 15 September 2014; Revised 28 February 2015; Accepted 17 March 2015 Advance online publication 22 April 2015 Top ​ ​ of page Abstract In most societies, surnames are passed down from fathers to sons, just like the Y chromosome. It follows that, theoretically, men sharing the same surnames would also be expected to share related Y chromosomes. Previous investigations have explored such relationships, but so far, the only detailed studies that have been conducted are on samples from the British Isles. In order to provide additional insights into the correlation between surnames and Y chromosomes, we focused on the Spanish population by analysing Y chromosomes from 2121 male volunteers representing 37 surnames. The results suggest that the degree of coancestry within Spanish surnames is highly dependent on surname frequency, in overall agreement with British but not Irish surname studies. Furthermore, a reanalysis of comparative data for all three populations showed that Irish surnames have much greater and older surname descent clusters than Spanish and British ones, suggesting that Irish surnames may have considerably earlier origins than Spanish or British ones. Overall, despite closer geographical ties between Ireland and Britain, our analysis points to substantial similarities in surname origin and development between Britain and Spain, while possibly hinting at unique demographic or social events shaping Irish surname foundation and development. -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

Ian, I understand that going 'public' with one's entire mtDNA genome isn't for everyone but I'm surprised that there aren't more FTDNA customers who choose to do so. As you are aware, submitters can list their names as a 'co-author' along with Bennett Greenspan for their own mtDNA genome submission. I've done that for mine. It's Accession No. HM034770. I wonder if the reason is that people don't know they can do this? Mardon (erbland@outlook.com)

Robert I, too, have a column for sorting and finding new rows added to my spreadsheet at the bottom. But sometimes a sort on name doesn't always leave the new ones on the bottom (and I have rows with same Match name for each segment). So I'm just interested in winding up with new rows which I can append to the master spreadsheet. Yours is a good tip. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 11, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Robert Paine <rpaine@vom.com> wrote: > > Jim > It depends on where you insert the new rows and if you have done any other sorting of the merged file before you apply the function to check for duplicates. (I add an extra column in which I insert a date to use as a reference and sorting tool.) > > RPaine > > -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett via > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:43 AM > To: Ann Turner ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] new cousins > > Ann > > Say you highlight the Match name and segment info (Chr, Start, End, cM, SNP)... Which duplicate row is deleted? Always the second row? I want to try this method, just need to know what happens. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master >> spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. >> >> Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for >> someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your master >> spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when you >> ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. >> >> Ann Turner > >

Ann, Thanks - very helpful. I'll try it on a copy of my spreadsheet. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 11, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Ann Turner <dnacousins@gmail.com> wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, it's always the second row. > > Ann > >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >> Ann >> >> Say you highlight the Match name and segment info (Chr, Start, End, cM, SNP)... Which duplicate row is deleted? Always the second row? I want to try this method, just need to know what happens. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >> >> > On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> > >> > That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master >> > spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. >> > >> > Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for >> > someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your master >> > spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when you >> > ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. >> > >> > Ann Turner >> > >> > >

Jim It depends on where you insert the new rows and if you have done any other sorting of the merged file before you apply the function to check for duplicates. (I add an extra column in which I insert a date to use as a reference and sorting tool.) RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bartlett via Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:43 AM To: Ann Turner ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] new cousins Ann Say you highlight the Match name and segment info (Chr, Start, End, cM, SNP)... Which duplicate row is deleted? Always the second row? I want to try this method, just need to know what happens. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master > spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. > > Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for > someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your > master > spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when > you > ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. > > Ann Turner > > ------------------------------- 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 the best of my knowledge, it's always the second row. Ann On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > Ann > > Say you highlight the Match name and segment info (Chr, Start, End, cM, > SNP)... Which duplicate row is deleted? Always the second row? I want to > try this method, just need to know what happens. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master > > spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. > > > > Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for > > someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your > master > > spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when > you > > ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. > > > > Ann Turner > > > > >

Ann Say you highlight the Match name and segment info (Chr, Start, End, cM, SNP)... Which duplicate row is deleted? Always the second row? I want to try this method, just need to know what happens. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master > spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. > > Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for > someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your master > spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when you > ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. > > Ann Turner > >

Ann As I look at this, I'd tweak your process a little. I use a lot of color in my spreadsheet (pink and blue for sides; brown for IBS; yellow for Matches at two companies; green to highlight HLA, Neanderthal, etc. regions). So I color code (purple) a column in the fresh download and look for them at the bottom after the delete-dups process. Also I do this on a copy of my spreadsheet, just to quickly cull out the new new Matches. I'd then copy only those to my master spreadsheet. Maybe a few extra steps, but I'd be nervous running any kind of delete-some-of-the-rows program on my master spreadsheet. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 10, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > This is a great plan, Ann. I've been requesting the aggregated list about weekly. In the past I appended it to my spreadsheet about every 6 months, sorted by name and compared all by hand. there were always ones I had missed, somehow, and there was a small percentage with "shifted" values - but never enough to change which Triangulated Group they were in, so I don't worry about that now. > > Using your method to easily just sort out the new Matches will be a big time saver. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> Do you download your entire list from time to time? If so, you could open >> your most recent list in Excel and highlight all the cells with some color. >> Then download your current list and copy-and-paste it at the end of the >> recent list. Ask Excel to delete duplicates (in the Data ribbon in Excel >> 2012). New matches and rows where anything has changed would be at the >> bottom without any color coding. This would include changes in their list >> of ancestors and other editable fields, but you could probably eyeball >> those, or tweak which fields you include in the deletion phase. >> >> Ann Turner >

We've had an acceleration in growth recently in the R1b project. This is a chart from the project statistics taken this morning. We are over 8,500 people in the project. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Project_Growth.pdf I'm encouraging people to upgrade to 111 Y STRs while they are on sale. Here is more background on the project; and the haplotype and gateway services provided. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background Co-admin Gail R has been fantastic in supporting the project! Thanks to her we have some order. Regards, Mike W On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we have something that is helpful newbie R1b folks.I've revamped > the big, old Kerchner R1b project a couple of times. > > You can read more about the project and its goals here: > https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b ( > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background ) > > and on the accompanying discussion group here: > https://groups.yahoo.com/groups/R1b-YDNA > > I've got a help tool, a spreadsheet, that can help evaluate testing > options leveraging 67 (or 111) STR haplotypes of folks that have done > advanced SNP testing. You can see example screenshots here in this brief > .pdf file. > http://tinyurl.com/R1b-Haplotypes-Help > > Essentially, this is like having the Y Classic, Y Colorized and Y SNP > project pages all combined into one, with the ability to select subgroups > of your own criteria on the fly. > > Genetic Distances, Variances, Modes, Means, etc. are calculated for any > selected group. > > Please invite any R1b predicted people in your projects to the R1b > project. They should stay in their current projects. This is just to help > them further define their more youthful haplogroups. > > Eligible testers are those that are > 1) R1b confirmed or predicted haplogroup from FTDNA, > 2) at 67 STRs or willing to upgrade (111 STRs is preferable), and > 3) that join the R1b project. > > Regards, > Mike W >

That works, too, and it's always safest to keep a copy of your master spreadsheet. However, any deletions occur in the appended lines. Also, and I suspect you've done this, but just to make it explicit for someone experimenting with this approach: if you add columns to your master spreadsheet with your personal notes, do not include those columns when you ask Excel to look for duplicate rows. Ann Turner On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > Ann > > As I look at this, I'd tweak your process a little. > I use a lot of color in my spreadsheet (pink and blue for sides; brown for > IBS; yellow for Matches at two companies; green to highlight HLA, > Neanderthal, etc. regions). So I color code (purple) a column in the fresh > download and look for them at the bottom after the delete-dups process. > Also I do this on a copy of my spreadsheet, just to quickly cull out the > new new Matches. I'd then copy only those to my master spreadsheet. Maybe a > few extra steps, but I'd be nervous running any kind of > delete-some-of-the-rows program on my master spreadsheet. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > On Dec 10, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jim Bartlett via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > This is a great plan, Ann. I've been requesting the aggregated list > about weekly. In the past I appended it to my spreadsheet about every 6 > months, sorted by name and compared all by hand. there were always ones I > had missed, somehow, and there was a small percentage with "shifted" > values - but never enough to change which Triangulated Group they were in, > so I don't worry about that now. > > > > Using your method to easily just sort out the new Matches will be a big > time saver. > > > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > >> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Do you download your entire list from time to time? If so, you could > open > >> your most recent list in Excel and highlight all the cells with some > color. > >> Then download your current list and copy-and-paste it at the end of the > >> recent list. Ask Excel to delete duplicates (in the Data ribbon in Excel > >> 2012). New matches and rows where anything has changed would be at the > >> bottom without any color coding. This would include changes in their > list > >> of ancestors and other editable fields, but you could probably eyeball > >> those, or tweak which fields you include in the deletion phase. > >> > >> Ann Turner > > >

Sam, If a person matches the Y-DNA of someone in the suggested new database being discussed, they would be able to contact the person who they match (if he wanted to be contacted) because of contact features built into the database. If all male line ancestors were given before 1900, the data included on the database would give some hints as to where to search for their kin anyway. But an exact match on 111 markers is still not a guarantee of recent relationship, just sign of a possibility. As you say, excluding living persons from on line trees is just a custom and a courtesy. No harm in being courteous I suggest. But not all on line trees exclude living persons. The Queen of England is named in on line trees. But I don't believe her DNA results are attached to the trees. John. Sent from my iPad > On 10/12/2015, at 2:16 pm, Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote: > > How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? > > I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. > > Sam Sloan > >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Doug, >> >> That did not read the way I intended it! >> >> I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. >> >> John. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via >> > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. >> > >> > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. >> > >> > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely helpful. >> > >> > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born before about 1900, but there are different views on that." >> > ----------------------------- >> > >> > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? >> > >> > Doug McDonald >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >

Since 23andMe started the Big Change on Nov 11 (my accounts haven’t flipped to the new interface yet, but I’ve seen all my invitations to anonymous matches disappear), some formerly anonymous matches within my 1,000-person cap (hasn’t yet gone up to the promised 2,000) seem to be converting to public. But I can’t figure out any way to quickly/easily identify them in order to send them genome-sharing invitations (the “you have to share in order to FI:A-compare” hasn’t gone away for me). Have any of you? I’m using the 23++ extension in Chrome, but I don’t see any way for them to help me easily identify to whom I need to send genome-sharing invitations since the last time I did. Am I missing something, or are we just waiting for the current “period of flux” to settle down, and then “all will be perfect”? Best, Eric OpenPGP <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159

Doug, That did not read the way I intended it! I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. John. Sent from my iPad > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely helpful. > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > ----------------------------- > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > Doug McDonald > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Actually I can think of harm *to me* from other people excluding living people. The harm is, I would like to contact my fourth cousins and try to get them to DNA test, but I have to know at least their names. -----Original Message----- From: AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: samhsloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> Cc: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 8:54 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") Sam, If a person matches the Y-DNA of someone in the suggested new database being discussed, they would be able to contact the person who they match (if he wanted to be contacted) because of contact features built into the database. If all male line ancestors were given before 1900, the data included on the database would give some hints as to where to search for their kin anyway. But an exact match on 111 markers is still not a guarantee of recent relationship, just sign of a possibility. As you say, excluding living persons from on line trees is just a custom and a courtesy. No harm in being courteous I suggest. But not all on line trees exclude living persons. The Queen of England is named in on line trees. But I don't believe her DNA results are attached to the trees. John. Sent from my iPad > On 10/12/2015, at 2:16 pm, Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote: > > How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? > > I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. > > Sam Sloan > >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Doug, >> >> That did not read the way I intended it! >> >> I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. >> >> John. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via >> > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. >> > >> > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. >> > >> > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely helpful. >> > >> > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born before about 1900, but there are different views on that." >> > ----------------------------- >> > >> > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? >> > >> > Doug McDonald >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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

Although there are a handful of people in the world who live to 115, I suggest a much more useful cutoff would be something like 85. After all you can gather all sorts of data off ancestry on people who lived in the 1940 census through their newer linked records system. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: AJ Marsh <ajmarshnz@gmail.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the > privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as > an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 > were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, > than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally > wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was > dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical > books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, > whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same > Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still > would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In > some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely > helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

This is a great plan, Ann. I've been requesting the aggregated list about weekly. In the past I appended it to my spreadsheet about every 6 months, sorted by name and compared all by hand. there were always ones I had missed, somehow, and there was a small percentage with "shifted" values - but never enough to change which Triangulated Group they were in, so I don't worry about that now. Using your method to easily just sort out the new Matches will be a big time saver. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Do you download your entire list from time to time? If so, you could open > your most recent list in Excel and highlight all the cells with some color. > Then download your current list and copy-and-paste it at the end of the > recent list. Ask Excel to delete duplicates (in the Data ribbon in Excel > 2012). New matches and rows where anything has changed would be at the > bottom without any color coding. This would include changes in their list > of ancestors and other editable fields, but you could probably eyeball > those, or tweak which fields you include in the deletion phase. > > Ann Turner >

Eric Before 11 Nov, I reinvited every Anon Match, and insured an invite to every Public Match. Now, I have 23andMe on back burner, until their final switch. I hope it will be useful (and I believe it will be). I'm still getting some 23andMe Matches thru GEDmatch Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 10, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Eric S Johnson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Since 23andMe started the Big Change on Nov 11 (my accounts haven’t flipped > to the new interface yet, but I’ve seen all my invitations to anonymous > matches disappear), some formerly anonymous matches within my 1,000-person > cap (hasn’t yet gone up to the promised 2,000) seem to be converting to > public. But I can’t figure out any way to quickly/easily identify them in > order to send them genome-sharing invitations (the “you have to share in > order to FI:A-compare” hasn’t gone away for me). Have any of you? > > > > I’m using the 23++ extension in Chrome, but I don’t see any way for them > to help me easily identify to whom I need to send genome-sharing invitations > since the last time I did. > > > > Am I missing something, or are we just waiting for the current “period of > flux” to settle down, and then “all will be perfect”? > > > > Best, > > Eric > >

Do you download your entire list from time to time? If so, you could open your most recent list in Excel and highlight all the cells with some color. Then download your current list and copy-and-paste it at the end of the recent list. Ask Excel to delete duplicates (in the Data ribbon in Excel 2012). New matches and rows where anything has changed would be at the bottom without any color coding. This would include changes in their list of ancestors and other editable fields, but you could probably eyeball those, or tweak which fields you include in the deletion phase. Ann Turner On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Eric S Johnson via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Since 23andMe started the Big Change on Nov 11 (my accounts haven’t flipped > to the new interface yet, but I’ve seen all my invitations to anonymous > matches disappear), some formerly anonymous matches within my 1,000-person > cap (hasn’t yet gone up to the promised 2,000) seem to be converting to > public. But I can’t figure out any way to quickly/easily identify them in > order to send them genome-sharing invitations (the “you have to share in > order to FI:A-compare” hasn’t gone away for me). Have any of you? > > > > I’m using the 23++ extension in Chrome, but I don’t see any way for them > to help me easily identify to whom I need to send genome-sharing > invitations > since the last time I did. > > > > Am I missing something, or are we just waiting for the current “period of > flux” to settle down, and then “all will be perfect”? > > > > Best, > > Eric > > OpenPGP > <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> > : > 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de > <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Oops. I stand corrected. -----Original Message----- From: John M Rhodes [mailto:johnmrhodes409@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:48 PM To: Loretta Layman; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") I believe the US census is released after 72 years, not 70. The 1940 census was released in 2012; the 1930 was released in 2002, etc. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 9, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Loretta Layman via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The Census Bureau waits only 70 years. The 1940 census was released > in 2010 and includes countless individuals still living. Of course, > only persons born by 1940 can be linked with their parents. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:17 PM > To: AJ Marsh; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA > Test") > > How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth > parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? > > I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. > Just a custom and courtesy. > > Sam Sloan > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Doug, >> >> That did not read the way I intended it! >> >> I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect >> the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant >> to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born >> before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons >> born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet >> trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one >> Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. >> >> John. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via >>> "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just >>> the >> presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published >> genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from >> brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed >> brothers did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct >> male line ancestor in the past >> 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it >> still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. >>> >>> In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their >> earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. >> In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. >>> >>> One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented >> pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able >> to infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies >> were hugely helpful. >>> >>> I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born >> before about 1900, but there are different views on that." >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? >>> >>> Doug McDonald >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 believe the US census is released after 72 years, not 70. The 1940 census was released in 2012; the 1930 was released in 2002, etc. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 9, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Loretta Layman via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The Census Bureau waits only 70 years. The 1940 census was released in 2010 > and includes countless individuals still living. Of course, only persons > born by 1940 can be linked with their parents. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:17 PM > To: AJ Marsh; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") > > How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if > everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? > > I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a > custom and courtesy. > > Sam Sloan > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Doug, >> >> That did not read the way I intended it! >> >> I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect >> the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant >> to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born >> before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons >> born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet >> trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one >> Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. >> >> John. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via >>> "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just >>> the >> presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published >> genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from >> brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers >> did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line >> ancestor in the past >> 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it >> still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. >>> >>> In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their >> earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. >> In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. >>> >>> One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented >> pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to >> infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were >> hugely helpful. >>> >>> I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born >> before about 1900, but there are different views on that." >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? >>> >>> Doug McDonald >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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