I personally grew tired of FTDNA's bugs and long wait times so I switched to YSEQ. Their tests are more than two times cheaper than FTDNA's and the results come within weeks. Not to mention that YSEQ are very flexible - today you request an SNP and it is in their catalog tomorrow. I am co-admin of a large FTDNA project and we have requested many SNPs in the past year but FTDNA has bean deaf for our requests in the past 10 months or so. Finally, here is my personal project: http://dna.kumbarov.com/ I also have another, Google Docs based, project for a particular haplogroup where I collect data from different sources: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IlSydR3SyIW7YpHGBO08feux-lqKx1_o4HmwCs6_r08/edit#gid=0 -- Best regards, Atanas Kumbarov http://dna.kumbarov.com/ On 2015-12-05 23:20, G. Magoon via wrote: > Personally I don't see it so cut and dried…I don't dispute that there are > some arguments that might favor FTDNA over YSEQ for the 37-marker Y-STR > test, but cost is not one of them in this case. Even the current FTDNA sale > price for the 37-marker test is over 60% higher than the same test at YSEQ. > > It is true that non-FTDNA customers results would not be included on the > FTDNA hosted website for a Y-DNA project...but is the value gained from > this really worth the extra cost, especially when testing price can be a > constraint for many prospective testers? A sufficiently competent Y-DNA > project admin can readily assimilate data from consenting sources such as > Y-SEQ testers, and host them in a Google Spreadsheet, for example. > Personally, I'm in the early stages of setting up a Y-DNA project without a > corresponding FTDNA project page, and I'm planning to use this sort of > Google Spreadsheet approach myself. I believe YSEQ may also have a basic > project infrastructure (but I'm not sure about that). > > That's just my two cents. > > Greg > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Loretta Layman via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Thank you for sharing your experience on this subject Linda. In spite of >> it's being no more perfect than any business entity in the world, FTDNA is >> the only choice - certainly the only wise choice - for Y-DNA (STR) testing. >> >> Loretta >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of McKee via >> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 4:21 PM >> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DNA] Where to yDNA Test >> >> Dear List Membership, >> >> >> Recently, Mary Hall queried this forum about yDNA testing. >> >> I am reading the digests all at one late date here and the thread has moved >> on. >> >> >> However, I would like to do a follow up about Greg's message in a >> roundabout way without making any judgement. >> >> In one of the FTDNA yDNA projects that I admin and happening on the new My >> Groups part of the project, posts were made by some group members >> advising people to test >> at ySEQ. >> >> One lady took the advice of the forum writers and tested yDNA at ySEQ. >> >> >> Some time later she writes that she cannot join FTDNA yDNA groups. >> >> >> After checking all this out we found that the lady paid almost $200.00 to >> ySEQ for yDNA testing with the expectations of being able to join the FTDNA >> yDNA groups. >> >> Well, needless to say for all those who are well versed in how this process >> all works, the lady was not able to join yDNA groups at FTDNA. Period. >> End of story as far as I know. >> >> >> Linda McKee >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

The case based on database size is fine, from a practical standpoint; but in the absence of any other benefit, the argument basically boils down to: "I am recommending you test at FTDNA because I and most others have been recommending FTDNA previously." Personally, I think it would be stupendous if someone was able to set up an independent matching system (analogous to GEDMATCH) for Y-STRs (and mtDNA for that matter). With such a tool, prospective testers wouldn't have to worry so much about having to pay a significantly higher price in order to get that "ticket" into a large database. Your post also raises the question: how much is that "ticket" worth to a prospective tester? 50% extra cost? 100% higher cost? 200% higher cost? Personally, I think that is a decision that should be made by the prospective tester (or the person paying for the test), based on financial considerations, goals, etc. From my perspective, it is not as simple as "there is only one choice". I'm glad you raised the issue about results living on for posterity, which I also think is an important consideration. But I think testers at all labs, including FTDNA, would be wise to take appropriate safegaurds in this respect. An organization or business will typically only have a finite lifespan, and there are no guarantees that results will be hosted/maintained in perpetuity, FTDNA included. Again, just my two cents. Greg On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. > This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and > sharing of results are needed. > > If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant > male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the > family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit > people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not > want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you > want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to > find them through a matching database. > > The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large > matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant > advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of > thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are > records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, > please read this web page. > https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx > > Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are > also getting a ticket into that large database and project management > system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join > projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support > in their database and matching systems as well. > > Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and > matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When > you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing > company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send > your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to > Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. > This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a > DNA sample from a recruit. > > The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product > line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even > Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of > autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for > your DNA sample. > > I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off > newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely > that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 > STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their > great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to > discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many > of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 > and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. > > Regards, > Mike W > > ------------------------------- > 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 was finally able to download the BAM file of the high-quality Altai Neanderthal sequence. It is available as accession ERP002097 at the European Nucleotide Archive <http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERP002097>. It actually consists of 5 BAM files, but so far I have only downloaded the first of these, a 12.3-gB file covering about chromosomes 1-6. To download it I used the free FlashGet Download Manager and set my Control Panel power option to "never sleep" to prevent the computer from going to sleep and suspending the download. The download required about 44 hours, but worked well. I can now view this Neanderthal BAM file against my own FGC WGS BAM file using the free Golden Helix Browser. The Altai Neanderthal sequence is almost complete with just a few gaps, much better than the Vindija Neanderthal sequences (from the site in Croatia), which can be seen in the UCSC Browser. There are some 200-300 SNPs in the region of the PRDM2 gene on chr 1 which I clearly share with the Altai Neanderthal individual. Most of these have a frequency in the modern human population of from 0.03 to 0.05 and for most of these the Altai sequence is homozygous while I am heterozygous. Most of these SNPS are present in Europeans at a level of about 2%, in South Asians at a level of 12-14%, and in East Asians at a level of about 2% (from 1000 Genomes data). However, there is a subset of the above SNPs which have a modern human frequency of about 0.013-0.014 and are present only in Europeans and South Asians, but not in East Asians. These rarer SNPs are still present in Europeans at a level of about 2%, indicating that the Neanderthal ancestors of most Europeans had all of these SNPs, while for South Asians the frequency of these rarer SNPs drops to about 4.6% compared to the 12-14% for the more common SNPs, indicating a more varied group of Neanderthal ancestors for South Asians. I am pasting a table below showing the rs numbers and locations of these rarer Neanderthal SNPs. This table also shows whether or not the Altai and Vindija Neanderthal sequences have these SNPs. It can be seen that there is a lot of variability, some of these SNPs being homozygous, some heterozygous, and some not present at all in the Altai and Vindija sequences. It will be interesting to see if a Neanderthal fossil will eventually be found sharing all of these rarer (more downstream?) SNPs. This would help to pinpoint the location of the Neanderthal introgression into modern Europeans. NEANDERTHAL SNPs FOUND ONLY IN EUROPEANS AND SOUTH ASIANS BUT NOT EAST ASIANS (OR AFRICANS) [chr1;Build GRCh37; all have overall freq=.013778 unless otherwise indicated] EUR=European; EAS=East Asian including Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese; SAS=South Asian including Bengali, Gujariti Indian, Sri Lankan Tamil, and Punjabi; YRI=Yoruba from Nigeria; NC= not covered SNP Location Alleles Neanderthal reads Frequencies in modern humans Altai Vindija rs369433490 at 13985244 C to T 2C 4C (overall freq=.0129792; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS.047, YRI 0) rs116573139 at 14009444 C to A 2C 1A (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115905418 at 14015398 A to G 1A1G 1A2G (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs181956703 at 14032408 C to T 3C NC (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs141008778 at 14035290 G to A 3G2A 3G2A (EUR .0290, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114155321 at 14037619 G to T 2G NC (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114005658 at 14044716 G to T 4G2T 1G (overall freq=.0135783; EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .045, YRI 0) rs114497926 at 14045457 T to C 2T3C 3T (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115494198 at 14047679 G to A 7G 3G (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115717211 at 14050333 C to T 3T 3C (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114228377 at 14053534 T to G 1T1G 3T1G (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs116572816 at 14064321 A to G 3A 2A (overall freq=.0139776; EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115723647 at 14067102 C to T 2C NC (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114514035 at 14075112 C to A 3C 4C1A (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115824810 at 14081298 G to A 2A 1G (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114036986 at 14082000 T to A 4T NC (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115231513 at 14083712 A to T 2A NC (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs187588348 at 14084745 C to T 3T 4C1T (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs115718893 at 14089057 T to A 3T 1T (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114100510 at 14089729 A to G 6G 1G (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114782786 at 14092651 C to T 2C 2C (EUR .0209, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs116636384 at 14102245 T to C 2T 2T1C (overall freq=.0127796; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs75266213 at 14102539 T to A 3A 2A (overall freq=.0127796; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114937447 at 14114988 A to C 4A NC (overall freq=.0127796; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114103649 at 14117543 C to G 2C 1C1G (overall freq=.0127796; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS .046, YRI 0) rs114857261 at 14126873 G to T 2G 3G1T (overall freq=.0171725; EUR .0169, EAS 0, SAS .0685, YRI 0)

Only one of my three accounts has been converted to the new format, and I'm still not even remotely proficient in using it. However, I noticed two things today that I don't think have been addressed yet in this forum. First, not all features of the site work with Safari on a Mac. When I clicked on Manage Your Connections, I got a box saying "You are seeing this because you are sharing with a family member but have not changed them from Relatives and Friends to their correct relationship (mother, father, etc). Please scroll down and change relatives with green check marks to their desired relationship." Clicking OK in response to this did nothing. There were no names listed, and nothing to scroll through. I tried the same thing with Chrome, and it worked OK. But, although I was then able to link this profile (my daughter-in-law) to her mother, who has her own account, and to my son as "partner," everybody else in her sharing list shows up as "friend". The other choices are "father's father", "father's mother" etc., and brother or sister. There's no option for cousin (as opposed to friend), let alone what I could do in the old version of DNA Relatives to identify a known cousin as "first cousin twice removed" or whatever. Second, while I was still working through Safari, I discovered that a message I sent recently (since this account converted) had lost all its line breaks: "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. Here's your match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 26.9 cM 3226 You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom I'm also sharing: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 cM 3270 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 159000000 22.1 cM 2452 _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 154000000 15.9 cM 1413 _____ vs. _____ 1 101000000 164000000 49.7 cM 7073 _____vs. _____ 1 118000000 163000000 27.9 cM 3435 I haven't found a common ancestor for any of these yet. ____'s ancestors have been in North Carolina since at least the late 1700s or early 1800s. Most, maybe all of them, came there from England and Scotland. The surnames are listed on my web page: [URL inserted here]l - look at just the names in red There are links to individual web pages for many of these families. Do you see anything that looks like a match to you, either names or ! locations? which should have been "Hi, my name is Elizabeth Harris, and ____ is my son's wife. I'm managing a big project focused on the ancestors of all my grandchildren. Here's your match: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 26.9 cM 3226 You also match several other people on the same segment, with whom I'm also sharing: _____ vs. _____ 1 118000000 162000000 27.2 cM 3270 and so on. If my recipient received it looking like this, she would have to copy it off and edit it just to make sense of it. When I tried to check this with Chrome, I couldn't find the sent messages at all. Clicking on the circle identifying this particular matching person said there were no messages.

Recruiting others to test, project and results sharing systems is critical. This is the essence of genetic genealogy as comparisons between people and sharing of results are needed. If possible, it is good in Y DNA testing to recruit get your most distant male cousin to test so you can estimate the DNA information for the family's most distant known ancestor (MDKA). However, it is hard to recruit people on the other side of your genealogical brickwalls and you may not want to pay for someone's tests you may not be related too. Ideally, you want people who are inclined towards DNA testing to find you or for you to find them through a matching database. The importance of a consistent set of test results available in a large matching database can not be understated. This is FTDNA's most dominant advantage for Y DNA, the largest accessible database. There hundreds of thousands of Y DNA records already available in FTDNA's database. These are records of real people, not just anonymous results. For more details, please read this web page. https://www.familytreedna.com/why-ftdna.aspx Cost is a factor, but when you get your Y STRs tested with FTDNA you are also getting a ticket into that large database and project management system with all of those surname projects. FTDNA allows you to join projects without cost and there is no annual subscription fee for support in their database and matching systems as well. Genetic test results data without the accompanying web based project and matching systems is not as useful and may not live on for prosperity. When you order STR and SNP tests from FTDNA your data is supported by a growing company with a 15 year, self-sustaining operation. You don't have to send your DNA sample to multiple labs. You and your recruits' samples all go to Houston's lab and are stored there subject to published privacy policies. This is particularly important if you think you only have one shot to get a DNA sample from a recruit. The central lab and DNA storage support is complemented by a full product line. Besides Y DNA testing up to 111 STRs, there is Y SNP testing and even Y Next Generation SNP discovery testing (Big Y) along with an array of autosomal and mitochondrial DNA tests. You have "one stop shopping" for your DNA sample. I'm not known for political correctness and we do not want to scare you off newbies but it is important that we acknowledge - It is very, very likely that 37 Y STRs is not enough. I recommend you starting with a minimum of 67 STRs. Most of the male large haplogroup branches of Europe started their great expansions during the Bronze Age. That means that it is very hard to discern who fits where at 37 STRs. 67 may not even be enough. Probably many of the people posting here, even those who prefer niche vendors, have 67 and even 111 STRs tested with FTDNA. Regards, Mike W

Linda, What you note about not being able to join FTDNA groups/ projects is technically correct if you have not tested at FTDNA..... mostly. In the past sometimes for a fee some transfer of information Y-DNA information to FTDNA from specific other test companies was allowed, which enabled joining projects at FTDNA. But that probably does not include YSeq currently. However I administer 3 projects through FTDNA, and those projects exist concurrently in two different formats. All have separate private web sites run by me, but also use FTDNA web pages and tools to varying degrees. Many other FTDNA projects likewise have concurrent separate existences as provided by the project managers. The management and energy of the projects comes largely from the project manager, and learning about your surname often comes down to the energy of the project manager of that surname project. In all of my projects, my private web sites include results from as many as perhaps 6 or 8 different DNA test companies which have existed or still exist. The FTDNA web sites have not always admitted information from different test companies, so some of my project results tables have perhaps up to twice the number of results which are on the "official" FTDNA project. So I would say that for my projects, and many other projects, learning about your surname Y-DNA is more related to what the project manager is doing than what the raw FTDNA shell of the FTDNA project is doing. But having said that, FTDNA tools provided to project manages, and customers generally are very useful and I rely on them a lot. YSearch allows all comers from all companies, and in some ways offsets the problem of not being able to directly join FTDNA projects. I tend to use different test companies for different things where they each have their market advantages. YSeq has advantages for some types of testing, and indeed are the only practical choice for many tests. Personally I wish all my project participants had DNA samples at both FTDNA and YSeq, so that I could fully use the best of both companies. Now that FTDNA have stopped testing individual STR markers, including ones they have tested in the past, but currently now do not offer even in 111 marker tests, YSeq is the only option. Not being able to officially join a FTDNA project can be a disadvantage, depending on surname, and who is actively managing that surname. But not being able to join a narrow scoped FTDNA project is not necessarily the end of the world. You can often learn about your surname Y-DNA without formal membership of the "FTDNA" project. Anyone tested at another company can at least contact the manager of actively run FTDNA projects, and a manager can often find work arounds to help people who contact him. John. Sent from my iPad > On 6/12/2015, at 10:21 am, McKee via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear List Membership, > > > Recently, Mary Hall queried this forum about yDNA testing. > > I am reading the digests all at one late date here and the thread has moved > on. > > > However, I would like to do a follow up about Greg's message in a > roundabout way without making any judgement. > > In one of the FTDNA yDNA projects that I admin and happening on the new My > Groups part of the project, posts were made by some group members > advising people to test > at ySEQ. > > One lady took the advice of the forum writers and tested yDNA at ySEQ. > > > Some time later she writes that she cannot join FTDNA yDNA groups. > > > After checking all this out we found that the lady paid almost $200.00 to > ySEQ for yDNA testing with the expectations of being able to join the FTDNA > yDNA groups. > > Well, needless to say for all those who are well versed in how this process > all works, the lady was not able to join yDNA groups at FTDNA. Period. > End of story as far as I know. > > > Linda McKee > > ------------------------------- > 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

If you test with Y-SEQ then you should also add your results to YSearch. If the YSearch ID is in WikiTree then it is automatically associated with the tester's direct paternal line. Sincerely, Peter Peter J. Roberts http://www.wikitree.com/blog/why-ysearch-matters/

World Families is a great place for the Google Spreadsheet.  That is where we put our project results (FTDNA, YSeq, SMGF, BritainsDNA, etc.). Regards, Larry From: G. Magoon via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: Loretta Layman <lynneage@h-o-l.com>; "genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: McKee <ldm.127187@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [DNA] Where to yDNA Test Personally I don't see it so cut and dried…I don't dispute that there are some arguments that might favor FTDNA over YSEQ for the 37-marker Y-STR test, but cost is not one of them in this case. Even the current FTDNA sale price for the 37-marker test is over 60% higher than the same test at YSEQ. It is true that non-FTDNA customers results would not be included on the FTDNA hosted website for a Y-DNA project...but is the value gained from this really worth the extra cost, especially when testing price can be a constraint for many prospective testers?  A sufficiently competent Y-DNA project admin can readily assimilate data from consenting sources such as Y-SEQ testers, and host them in a Google Spreadsheet, for example. Personally, I'm in the early stages of setting up a Y-DNA project without a corresponding FTDNA project page, and I'm planning to use this sort of Google Spreadsheet approach myself. I believe YSEQ may also have a basic project infrastructure (but I'm not sure about that). That's just my two cents. Greg

Personally I don't see it so cut and dried…I don't dispute that there are some arguments that might favor FTDNA over YSEQ for the 37-marker Y-STR test, but cost is not one of them in this case. Even the current FTDNA sale price for the 37-marker test is over 60% higher than the same test at YSEQ. It is true that non-FTDNA customers results would not be included on the FTDNA hosted website for a Y-DNA project...but is the value gained from this really worth the extra cost, especially when testing price can be a constraint for many prospective testers? A sufficiently competent Y-DNA project admin can readily assimilate data from consenting sources such as Y-SEQ testers, and host them in a Google Spreadsheet, for example. Personally, I'm in the early stages of setting up a Y-DNA project without a corresponding FTDNA project page, and I'm planning to use this sort of Google Spreadsheet approach myself. I believe YSEQ may also have a basic project infrastructure (but I'm not sure about that). That's just my two cents. Greg On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Loretta Layman via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thank you for sharing your experience on this subject Linda. In spite of > it's being no more perfect than any business entity in the world, FTDNA is > the only choice - certainly the only wise choice - for Y-DNA (STR) testing. > > Loretta > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of McKee via > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 4:21 PM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Where to yDNA Test > > Dear List Membership, > > > Recently, Mary Hall queried this forum about yDNA testing. > > I am reading the digests all at one late date here and the thread has moved > on. > > > However, I would like to do a follow up about Greg's message in a > roundabout way without making any judgement. > > In one of the FTDNA yDNA projects that I admin and happening on the new My > Groups part of the project, posts were made by some group members > advising people to test > at ySEQ. > > One lady took the advice of the forum writers and tested yDNA at ySEQ. > > > Some time later she writes that she cannot join FTDNA yDNA groups. > > > After checking all this out we found that the lady paid almost $200.00 to > ySEQ for yDNA testing with the expectations of being able to join the FTDNA > yDNA groups. > > Well, needless to say for all those who are well versed in how this process > all works, the lady was not able to join yDNA groups at FTDNA. Period. > End of story as far as I know. > > > Linda McKee > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Thank you for sharing your experience on this subject Linda. In spite of it's being no more perfect than any business entity in the world, FTDNA is the only choice - certainly the only wise choice - for Y-DNA (STR) testing. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of McKee via Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 4:21 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Where to yDNA Test Dear List Membership, Recently, Mary Hall queried this forum about yDNA testing. I am reading the digests all at one late date here and the thread has moved on. However, I would like to do a follow up about Greg's message in a roundabout way without making any judgement. In one of the FTDNA yDNA projects that I admin and happening on the new My Groups part of the project, posts were made by some group members advising people to test at ySEQ. One lady took the advice of the forum writers and tested yDNA at ySEQ. Some time later she writes that she cannot join FTDNA yDNA groups. After checking all this out we found that the lady paid almost $200.00 to ySEQ for yDNA testing with the expectations of being able to join the FTDNA yDNA groups. Well, needless to say for all those who are well versed in how this process all works, the lady was not able to join yDNA groups at FTDNA. Period. End of story as far as I know. Linda McKee ------------------------------- 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

Dear List Membership, Recently, Mary Hall queried this forum about yDNA testing. I am reading the digests all at one late date here and the thread has moved on. However, I would like to do a follow up about Greg's message in a roundabout way without making any judgement. In one of the FTDNA yDNA projects that I admin and happening on the new My Groups part of the project, posts were made by some group members advising people to test at ySEQ. One lady took the advice of the forum writers and tested yDNA at ySEQ. Some time later she writes that she cannot join FTDNA yDNA groups. After checking all this out we found that the lady paid almost $200.00 to ySEQ for yDNA testing with the expectations of being able to join the FTDNA yDNA groups. Well, needless to say for all those who are well versed in how this process all works, the lady was not able to join yDNA groups at FTDNA. Period. End of story as far as I know. Linda McKee

Unless you and someone else proves me wrong. I can prove it triangulated with a lot of people and it's backed up by three family trees. If that's not enough then we should all stop doing DNA genealogy as that would mean there is no method. Andreas > On 5 Dec 2015, at 01:32, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > > Andreas > > I hope that those small triangulated segments are IBD. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 4, 2015, at 12:44 PM, "ahnen@awest.de" <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >> >> Well Jim, >> >> I have a case with 3 different individuals (plus one additional sibling and myself as a son) where we all match through the same paper trail to a common ancestor and we also have a triangulated segment that for some of us is below 5 cM. >> >> There are also several other matches that triangulate as well but I haven't contacted them yet to identify their path to the common ancestor. >> >> It's tedious work that took me almost a full day but it's possible. >> >> Andreas >> >>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 22:10, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> It is true that lots of 4cM IBD segments exist for all of us. But there are two problems: >>> 1. However many there are, you would be swamped with many more IBS segments. >>> 2. We don't have a good way to test for IBS, short of phasing which most folks can't do. >>> Refer to my blog. All the segments in your body (on chromosomes in your DNA) are IBD! I call them ancestral segments. You only get your DNA from your ancestors - 1cM segments, 3cM segments, all of them. The segments we "see" in a chromosome browser or a spreadsheet are shared segments (with a Match), as determined by a computer program comparing your SNPs (from both your parents) with your Match's SNPs (from both of his/her parents). This shared segment is made up, fabricated. Over the short term - with only a few hundred SNPs - it's easy for the computer algorithm to "stitch together" apparently matching segments. >>> As much as I tout triangulation, we don't really know if it works for very short segments. I'm comfortable predicting that triangulation works to sort out IBS segments over 7cM virtually all the time. These are typically longer segments, and I have yet to find any which don't work over 7cM. I have been experimenting with 5-7cM segments. Probably 95% do not triangulate on either side, and therefor must be IBS. It appears the remaining 5% may be IBD - they "fit" into existing Triangulated Groups, and have not been found to be wrong. All triangulations should be formed (based, grounded) on three widely separated kits. Close relatives have identical SNPs over long regions - it's like triangulating with an identical twin with the same DNA. Distant cousins increase the probability that you will weed out IBS segments. With known cousins you are starting with only one string of known SNPs among them over the TG. >>> >>> So be I am very suspect of triangulation below 5cM. We really need some good studies with phased data... >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:01 PM, "ahnen@awest.de" <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes but it still means that if there was a 8cM ancestral segment and it gets cut into half the size (just an example, recombination is basically randomly happening) for the next generation it's still a small portion of our ancestors DNA. >>>> >>>> However for all testing companies and everyone using the minimum 5, 7 or even 10 cM rule it doesn't exist anymore. >>>> >>>> But it does exist still. Given the enormous number of IBS/IBC at that range it doesn't make sense to follow them as a general rule but in case when a relationship is know from paper trail it makes sense to extend the search among a group of known cousins further. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 05:24, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Lindsey >>>>> >>>>> Our paper trail means nothing to the DNA. The DNA passes down just the same for rich/poor, famous/not-so, known relatives/not known. Just because we know the cousin, doesn't, somehow, change the quality of segments. The average ratio of IBD/IBS at any cM value will not change. >>>>> >>>>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I will definitely concentrate on the large segments. I was just wondering whether it was reasonable to assume small segments were likely to be ancestral, too, once the relationship and common ancestors had been identified. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lindsey >>>>>> >>>>>>

Those 486 relatives come from all different branches and not just from the male-only line. So get your father tested at 23andme and then there is a chrome browser extension which you install, you surf to the phylotree and you copy/upload (don't remember exactly) your father's results there, select the result in the browser and it shows you along the various SNP where the tester is positive/negative or unknown (as 23andme is not testing all relevant SNP's). IMO with the progress that is made on Big-Y and Full-Y the STR method (which is what the standard FTDNA gives you) is anyway only a very high level result and pretty much useless especially if he's from a very popular R1 subgroup. I also found it quite irritating that FTDNA put me higher up the phylotree with their 67 marker STR method than what could be identified with the SNP's tested at 23andme. In summary, the FTDNA 67 marker was a big disappointment for me. Btw, the above method is if you want to known more details about where in the downstream of the reported Y-DNA and mtDNA (as your father will get both) your father is. 23andme automatically reports the results, so if you want to know both are shown on their screen and the chrome extension isn't necessary to find out, sorry if that confuses you (it's more an expert option with manual work). Andreas > On Dec 5, 2015, at 05:05, Barbara Ryan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Since I am female, I only received my maternal haplogroup (H7) from 23andMe. > However, in looking at the paternal haplogroups of my 486 relatives who have > one, 271 have a paternal haplogroup starting with R1b1b2. My father's > grandfather is from Ireland. Is it likely that my father (deceased) had > this haplogroup? > > Thanks, > Barb > > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:47:30 +0000 > From: "McDonald, J Douglas" <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA test - which one? > > 23andme does not do "predicted" haplogroups. They only do SNP tests, so > unless there is a mistake what they say is for sure. Of course, their > assignment is rather coarse. > > Doug McDonald > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary E Hall via > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:08 AM > To: Barbara Ryan; genealogy-dna > Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA test - which one? > > Barb- > > What was your father's predicted haplogroup at 23andMe? That will provide a > good indication of how many markers he would need to test at FamilyTree DNA > in order to (hope to) find meaningful information on the paternal line. > > Mary > > > Mary E Hall > Santa Barbara, CA > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Barbara Ryan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >> wrote: > >> I have taken the autosomal test at 23andMe but am interested in >> pursuing my father's line (surname) so would like to purchase a Y-DNA >> test kit for my brother to use. >> >> >> >> Which company's test is best, or is FTDNA the only one that offers it? >> >> Is the 37 markers test sufficient? Are additional markers cost effective? >> >> Are the current holiday discounts substantial, or does FT typically >> offer discounts throughout the year? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> Barb R. >> >> > ********************************************** > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Yep, it was more detailed (means I was able to check for SNP's further down e phylotree) than what FTDNA reported with their 67 markers test. As I have no match and not even a close one for my Y-DNA, I would say save the money. If you want to spent money, go for 67 markers as that's the best bang for bucks IMO Andreas > On Dec 5, 2015, at 01:35, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have found the 23andMe predicted Hgs to be pretty accurate, albeit often based on an outdated tree. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 4, 2015, at 12:47 PM, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> 23andme does not do "predicted" haplogroups. They only do SNP tests, so unless >> there is a mistake what they say is for sure. Of course, their assignment is rather coarse. >> >> Doug McDonald >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary E Hall via >> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:08 AM >> To: Barbara Ryan; genealogy-dna >> Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA test - which one? >> >> Barb- >> >> What was your father's predicted haplogroup at 23andMe? That will provide >> a good indication of how many markers he would need to test at FamilyTree >> DNA in order to (hope to) find meaningful information on the paternal line. >> >> Mary >> >> >> Mary E Hall >> Santa Barbara, CA >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Barbara Ryan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com >>> wrote: >> >>> I have taken the autosomal test at 23andMe but am interested in pursuing my >>> father's line (surname) so would like to purchase a Y-DNA test kit for my >>> brother to use. >>> >>> >>> >>> Which company's test is best, or is FTDNA the only one that offers it? >>> >>> Is the 37 markers test sufficient? Are additional markers cost effective? >>> >>> Are the current holiday discounts substantial, or does FT typically offer >>> discounts throughout the year? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Barb R. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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

Andreas Your own experience will help us understand Triangulation. It's a great tool, but it has limits... Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 4, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Andreas West <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: > > Unless you and someone else proves me wrong. I can prove it triangulated with a lot of people and it's backed up by three family trees. > > If that's not enough then we should all stop doing DNA genealogy as that would mean there is no method. > > Andreas > >> On 5 Dec 2015, at 01:32, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> Andreas >> >> I hope that those small triangulated segments are IBD. >> >> Jim - www.segmentology.org >> >>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 12:44 PM, "ahnen@awest.de" <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >>> >>> Well Jim, >>> >>> I have a case with 3 different individuals (plus one additional sibling and myself as a son) where we all match through the same paper trail to a common ancestor and we also have a triangulated segment that for some of us is below 5 cM. >>> >>> There are also several other matches that triangulate as well but I haven't contacted them yet to identify their path to the common ancestor. >>> >>> It's tedious work that took me almost a full day but it's possible. >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 22:10, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> It is true that lots of 4cM IBD segments exist for all of us. But there are two problems: >>>> 1. However many there are, you would be swamped with many more IBS segments. >>>> 2. We don't have a good way to test for IBS, short of phasing which most folks can't do. >>>> Refer to my blog. All the segments in your body (on chromosomes in your DNA) are IBD! I call them ancestral segments. You only get your DNA from your ancestors - 1cM segments, 3cM segments, all of them. The segments we "see" in a chromosome browser or a spreadsheet are shared segments (with a Match), as determined by a computer program comparing your SNPs (from both your parents) with your Match's SNPs (from both of his/her parents). This shared segment is made up, fabricated. Over the short term - with only a few hundred SNPs - it's easy for the computer algorithm to "stitch together" apparently matching segments. >>>> As much as I tout triangulation, we don't really know if it works for very short segments. I'm comfortable predicting that triangulation works to sort out IBS segments over 7cM virtually all the time. These are typically longer segments, and I have yet to find any which don't work over 7cM. I have been experimenting with 5-7cM segments. Probably 95% do not triangulate on either side, and therefor must be IBS. It appears the remaining 5% may be IBD - they "fit" into existing Triangulated Groups, and have not been found to be wrong. All triangulations should be formed (based, grounded) on three widely separated kits. Close relatives have identical SNPs over long regions - it's like triangulating with an identical twin with the same DNA. Distant cousins increase the probability that you will weed out IBS segments. With known cousins you are starting with only one string of known SNPs among them over the TG. >>>> >>>> So be I am very suspect of triangulation below 5cM. We really need some good studies with phased data... >>>> >>>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>>> >>>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:01 PM, "ahnen@awest.de" <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes but it still means that if there was a 8cM ancestral segment and it gets cut into half the size (just an example, recombination is basically randomly happening) for the next generation it's still a small portion of our ancestors DNA. >>>>> >>>>> However for all testing companies and everyone using the minimum 5, 7 or even 10 cM rule it doesn't exist anymore. >>>>> >>>>> But it does exist still. Given the enormous number of IBS/IBC at that range it doesn't make sense to follow them as a general rule but in case when a relationship is know from paper trail it makes sense to extend the search among a group of known cousins further. >>>>> >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 05:24, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Lindsey >>>>>> >>>>>> Our paper trail means nothing to the DNA. The DNA passes down just the same for rich/poor, famous/not-so, known relatives/not known. Just because we know the cousin, doesn't, somehow, change the quality of segments. The average ratio of IBD/IBS at any cM value will not change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will definitely concentrate on the large segments. I was just wondering whether it was reasonable to assume small segments were likely to be ancestral, too, once the relationship and common ancestors had been identified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lindsey >>>>>>> >>>>>>>

Karla, Thanks for your post and your last sentence is the most important one! > On Dec 4, 2015, at 21:18, Karla Huebner <calypsospots@gmail.com> wrote: > > , so I can see pretty quickly if two or four people have a big match and another has just a bit of it. > > Karla

Well Jim, I have a case with 3 different individuals (plus one additional sibling and myself as a son) where we all match through the same paper trail to a common ancestor and we also have a triangulated segment that for some of us is below 5 cM. There are also several other matches that triangulate as well but I haven't contacted them yet to identify their path to the common ancestor. It's tedious work that took me almost a full day but it's possible. Andreas > On Dec 4, 2015, at 22:10, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > > It is true that lots of 4cM IBD segments exist for all of us. But there are two problems: > 1. However many there are, you would be swamped with many more IBS segments. > 2. We don't have a good way to test for IBS, short of phasing which most folks can't do. > Refer to my blog. All the segments in your body (on chromosomes in your DNA) are IBD! I call them ancestral segments. You only get your DNA from your ancestors - 1cM segments, 3cM segments, all of them. The segments we "see" in a chromosome browser or a spreadsheet are shared segments (with a Match), as determined by a computer program comparing your SNPs (from both your parents) with your Match's SNPs (from both of his/her parents). This shared segment is made up, fabricated. Over the short term - with only a few hundred SNPs - it's easy for the computer algorithm to "stitch together" apparently matching segments. > As much as I tout triangulation, we don't really know if it works for very short segments. I'm comfortable predicting that triangulation works to sort out IBS segments over 7cM virtually all the time. These are typically longer segments, and I have yet to find any which don't work over 7cM. I have been experimenting with 5-7cM segments. Probably 95% do not triangulate on either side, and therefor must be IBS. It appears the remaining 5% may be IBD - they "fit" into existing Triangulated Groups, and have not been found to be wrong. All triangulations should be formed (based, grounded) on three widely separated kits. Close relatives have identical SNPs over long regions - it's like triangulating with an identical twin with the same DNA. Distant cousins increase the probability that you will weed out IBS segments. With known cousins you are starting with only one string of known SNPs among them over the TG. > > So be I am very suspect of triangulation below 5cM. We really need some good studies with phased data... > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:01 PM, "ahnen@awest.de" <ahnen@awest.de> wrote: >> >> Yes but it still means that if there was a 8cM ancestral segment and it gets cut into half the size (just an example, recombination is basically randomly happening) for the next generation it's still a small portion of our ancestors DNA. >> >> However for all testing companies and everyone using the minimum 5, 7 or even 10 cM rule it doesn't exist anymore. >> >> But it does exist still. Given the enormous number of IBS/IBC at that range it doesn't make sense to follow them as a general rule but in case when a relationship is know from paper trail it makes sense to extend the search among a group of known cousins further. >> >> Andreas >> >>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 05:24, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> Lindsey >>> >>> Our paper trail means nothing to the DNA. The DNA passes down just the same for rich/poor, famous/not-so, known relatives/not known. Just because we know the cousin, doesn't, somehow, change the quality of segments. The average ratio of IBD/IBS at any cM value will not change. >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org >>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I will definitely concentrate on the large segments. I was just wondering whether it was reasonable to assume small segments were likely to be ancestral, too, once the relationship and common ancestors had been identified. >>>> >>>> Lindsey >>>> >>>>

Endogamy, my thoughts, Israel's book, JIm's blog post ... http://blog.kittycooper.com/2015/12/endogamy-a-book-and-a-blog-post-and-my-own-explorations/ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

23andme does not do "predicted" haplogroups. They only do SNP tests, so unless there is a mistake what they say is for sure. Of course, their assignment is rather coarse. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary E Hall via Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:08 AM To: Barbara Ryan; genealogy-dna Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA test - which one? Barb- What was your father's predicted haplogroup at 23andMe? That will provide a good indication of how many markers he would need to test at FamilyTree DNA in order to (hope to) find meaningful information on the paternal line. Mary Mary E Hall Santa Barbara, CA On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Barbara Ryan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > I have taken the autosomal test at 23andMe but am interested in pursuing my > father's line (surname) so would like to purchase a Y-DNA test kit for my > brother to use. > > > > Which company's test is best, or is FTDNA the only one that offers it? > > Is the 37 markers test sufficient? Are additional markers cost effective? > > Are the current holiday discounts substantial, or does FT typically offer > discounts throughout the year? > > > > Thanks! > Barb R. > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 have been playing with the revised version of the Gedmatch Search all Gedcoms function. I looked up one of my family surnames that were all born in the same country. Then picked out those whose details sounded familiar as well as those surnames who came from the same or adjoining counties as mine. I then compared their results in the 3D Chromosome Browser. The results were not too dramatic,some of the matches were in the 5cms and 6cms range. One result though on the x-chromosome I thought might be significant, one block over 8cms. and another block over five, both with the same person. My query is would the x-chromosome really be significant and also due to the similar surname and geographical location would the other five to six cms. matches also have some relevance. David