I understand that the Southern California Genealogical Society is still accepting submissions from speakers through October 7 for the next conference June 2 - 5, 2016. See the Call for Presentations. I know many of you are good speakers so you are welcome to apply. Thursday, June 2 is the all-day DNA conference. The SCGS Jamboree takes place from June 3 to June 5 which generally includes a few DNA talks among many genealogy lectures. I am told there will be Friday DNA workshops on June 3. Exhibits and DNA test companies are expected to be present all weekend. Individual help is often available at one of the DNA booths if we have enough volunteers throughout the weekend. http://genealogyjamboree.com/ http://2016callforpresentations.surveyconsole.com/console/ShortURL Kathy J.

Wesley, I have been a FTDNA customer for over a decade, and frequently use their customer database matching programme. I have, in spite of my "experience" been caught out from time to time exactly the same way you have been, including as recently as a week ago. If my attention wavers during the process, I sometimes miss the message coming on the screen that it found no matches at the higher level, and it has changed down to a lower marker test. Over all, I think the matching process does work if I have enough coffee in me to keep my attention levels up, and I don't really mind the programme automatically switching down to lower marker levels automatically. Perhaps they can improve the programme a little by making the switch to fewer markers a little more obvious. It must be hard for new customers to realise what is going on when a customer with 10 years experience of the system still occasionally gets tripped up by it. My long standing wish list has been for FTDNA to widen the matching criteria out to more mutation steps difference for each of the at least 37, 67, 111 marker sets. I would even like it widened for the 12, and 25 marker sets, but my interest in those marker levels is perhaps untypical, and systems to some degree get set for majority type users, not eccentric people. Recently I started a new FTDNA project, and as project administrator I have in recent days comparing new participants. It strikes me that in 2 large surname groups, each group with common ancestor about 800 years ago, lots of clearly related people fall outside of the matching limits set by FTDNA. For example, I find that at 111 markers many related persons of the same surname have more mutation steps difference than the 9 step limit which FTDNA use for the cut off point. I would personally like the mutation steps difference increases for 37, 67, 111 marker matches. If a person has hundreds or thousands of matches at a particular level, more matches might seem like added confusion. But I would like to think that at any level, if they got no matches, then FTDNA increased the mutation steps difference until they started getting matches. For example, if a person gets no matches at 9 steps on 111 markers, they could extend the search to 10 or 11 or 12 mutation steps until a minimum of say 20 matches come up in total. Or perhaps they could have an advances user option where matches at a few mutation steps higher could be searched for. Project administrators are normally experienced enough to understand the significance of a 10 step match at 111 markers with the same common ancestor listed. Another thought I have is that if 2 persons match at say 37 markers, and the TIP programme predicts common ancestor at say 15 generations, it would be good if customers could check the time to common ancestor predictions for the same two at 111 markers if both have tested 111 markers. At 37 markers the prediction might be 15 generations, say 500 years, well within the genealogical time frame, but if both have tested 111 markers, and 111 markers on TIP predicted relationship to be 30,000 years back, in my view that is significant information which the customers should be aware of........ instead of just being able to see the misleading match at lower marker levels. I have many hundreds of matches at 12 markers, but perhaps only a couple of dozen are related to me in the past 1000 years. If I could for these hundreds actually see which ones matched me closest at 67 or 111 markers it would enable me to better short list the more promising matches, or rather eliminate the insignificant matches. Another issue can be multi step mutations. In my family I have an apparent 4 step mutation at one marker which messes up the matching system, and eliminates matches. What I would like is to be able to search for matches at say 111 markers, but selectively eliminate one of the marker panels from the matching formula. For example if I could look at matches at 111 markers, but exclude say the 26 to 37 marker panel from the search, it would bring up relatives who had multi step mutations in that panel which prevented them from being within 10 steps on all 111 markers together. I have in rare situations seen multi step mutations in families of a dozen or more steps on a single marker...... that makes it almost impossible to find family matches in the FTDNA customer database. The purpose of genetic genealogy is to find related matches. If FTDNA fine tuned their customer database matching formula particularly at the higher marker levels, it would encourage more customers to test more markers. Why test 111 markers, if FTDNA set the matching formula at such a level as to eliminate finding even same surname matches with the same common ancestor? I am an optimist, so maintain a wish list. One day if the Gods and FTDNA are willing, some of my wishes may come true! John. Sent from my iPad > On 3/10/2015, at 9:59 pm, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > FTDNA did find the source of the problem. > Even though I specified that I wanted 111-matching, none of the potential matches matched at the 111 level above FTDNA's threshold. So it automatically down-sized the match to the 67 level, where it showed both 67 and 111 testers. But the difference level for them all was calculated on their match at the 67-marker level. > So when that closest shown matching person (who I later found differed by 8 at the 111 level) showed in the match list differing by 2, it was telling me (implicitly) that even though the person had tested at the 111 level, the difference of 2 that was shown was calculated only on that person's 67-level markers. > FTDNA is going to consider how to prevent such mis-understandings, either by making explicit what has happened or by some other means. > The more that I think about it, I would really like to be able to see the 111 candidates without the automatic drop-down to 67, even if they are distant by 8 or 9 or whatever threshold I would like to examine. When I want to see 111-only candidates, I really do want to see just 111's, regardless of their difference. Certainly the threshold has to be within some reasonable limit, so s not to display hundreds. But I would like to at least see what the nearest neighbor universe looks like at 111 without having it roll down to 67. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:44:24 -0400 > From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> > > Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem, did you get a response? It is a little scary. > >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose results just came in. >> FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 of 111 markers -- WOW!! >> But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. >> Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. >> What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 he was tested by ancestry simply download the raw data from ancestry.com and upload it to gedmatch.com They will give you a number beginning with the letter A. There is no need to go through any other program or other test. Sam Sloan On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Wesley Johnston via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. > He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. > His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, > there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from > his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that > Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. > What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we > can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since > it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA? > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Does your friend have access to the father's account ? If so download the raw data and import it into FTDNA Family Finder and GEDmatch. There is a very good chance of finding cousins on the father's side that way . Unless a large number of male in the fathers direct ancestor have tested Y DNA at 111 you won't find out much. Mike On 03/10/2015 02:42, Wesley Johnston via wrote: > A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. > His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. > What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA? > > > ------------------------------- > 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 assume the Father had no brothers, or sons or other male relatives is that correct ?I wonder if the AUTOSOMAL TEST would have good results for distant cousins ?? that may be related thru the male line. allen Message: 2 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 01:42:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com> Subject: [DNA] Obtaining y-DNA from a sample at Ancestry To: Genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:     <886878632.606896.1443836527227.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA?

I just found out that as a project admin I could order additional tests for the project participants- no permissions required (but, of course, sought!) On Friday, October 2, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. > He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. > His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, > there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from > his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that > Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. > What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we > can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since > it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA? > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com <javascript:;> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

List Another 12 mtDNA sequences from FTDNA customers have appeared on the GenBank database. The sequences belong to Haplogroups: H3, H5a2, H7c, H44b, HV0, HV0e, K1a11, K1b2a2a, T1a1, U6a5 And, as usual, I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk --------------- KT799550(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup T1a1 30-SEP-2015 A73G T152C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C 573.1C 573.2C G709A A750G A1438G G1598A G1888A A2706G T4216C A4769G A4917G C7028T G8697A A8860G A9855G T9899C T10463C A11251G G11719A C12633A G13368A C14766T G14905A A15326G C15452A A15607G G15928A T16126C A16163G C16186T T16189C C16294T T16519C KT799551(Bulgaria) FTDNA Haplogroup H44b 30-SEP-2015 T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G T5442C A8860G A12612G C13662T A15326G A16051G A16312G T16519C KT799637(France) FTDNA Haplogroup H3 30-SEP-2015 T152C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G C5206T T6776C G7805A A8860G A15326G T16249C T16519C KT799679(Spain) FTDNA Haplogroup U6a5 30-SEP-2015 A73G A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G A3348G G3591A A4769G C7028T G7642A G7805A A8339G A8860G A9855G A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A G13590A A14179G C14766T A15326G G15927A T16172C T16189C A16219G C16278T KT803044 FTDNA Haplogroup HV0e 30-SEP-2015 T72C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G A2905G A4769G C7028T A8860G T10609C A15326G T15454C T16093Y T16298C KT803045(France) FTDNA Haplogroup K1a11 30-SEP-2015 A16T A73G C150T T199C A263G 309.1C 315.1C C497T A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G C7028T C8281- C8282- C8283- C8284- C8285- T8286- C8287- T8288- A8289- A8860G G9055A T9698C T9938C A10398G A10550G T11299C A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A C14167T C14766T T14798C A15326G G16129A A16203G T16224C T16311C T16519C KT807948(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup H7c 30-SEP-2015 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G A4793G C6296A T8516C A8860G T15115C A15326G T16519C KT807955 FTDNA Haplogroup H5a2 30-SEP-2015 A263G 309.1C 309.2C 315.1C C456T A750G A1438G T4336C A4769G C5839T A8860G A15326G T16189C T16304C KT808880 FTDNA Haplogroup HV0 30-SEP-2015 T72C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G A4769G C7028T A8860G A14693G A15326G G16129A T16298C KT809364(Czech) FTDNA Haplogroup H3 30-SEP-2015 T195Y A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G T6776C A8860G G13359A C14428T A15326G T16519C KT819292 FTDNA Haplogroup H3 30-SEP-2015 A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G A4769G T6776C A8860G G14900A A15326G T16519C KT821555(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup K1b2a2a 30-SEP-2015 A73G T146C T195C A263G 315.1C A517G 523.1C 523.2A 523.3C 523.4A A750G T1189C A1438G A1811G A2706G A3480G A4769G G5913A C7028T G7521A A8860G G9055A T9495C T9698C A10398G A10550G T11299C A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A T12738G G12771A C14167T A14687G C14766T T14798C A15326G T16224C T16311C T16519C

John, I agree with you. The raw genetic distance method used by FTDNA is flawed. You mention your family has a multistep mutation at a single marker. I too have such a situation in my family. Our DYS448 is15 while the common alleles for this marker is 19. I treat this as a single step mutation but FTDNA obviously treat it as a 4 step difference thus I only have two matches at the 25 marker level. Eldon -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:58 AM To: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com>; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA y-DNA - big difference errors Wesley, I have been a FTDNA customer for over a decade, and frequently use their customer database matching programme. I have, in spite of my "experience" been caught out from time to time exactly the same way you have been, including as recently as a week ago. If my attention wavers during the process, I sometimes miss the message coming on the screen that it found no matches at the higher level, and it has changed down to a lower marker test. Over all, I think the matching process does work if I have enough coffee in me to keep my attention levels up, and I don't really mind the programme automatically switching down to lower marker levels automatically. Perhaps they can improve the programme a little by making the switch to fewer markers a little more obvious. It must be hard for new customers to realise what is going on when a customer with 10 years experience of the system still occasionally gets tripped up by it. My long standing wish list has been for FTDNA to widen the matching criteria out to more mutation steps difference for each of the at least 37, 67, 111 marker sets. I would even like it widened for the 12, and 25 marker sets, but my interest in those marker levels is perhaps untypical, and systems to some degree get set for majority type users, not eccentric people. Recently I started a new FTDNA project, and as project administrator I have in recent days comparing new participants. It strikes me that in 2 large surname groups, each group with common ancestor about 800 years ago, lots of clearly related people fall outside of the matching limits set by FTDNA. For example, I find that at 111 markers many related persons of the same surname have more mutation steps difference than the 9 step limit which FTDNA use for the cut off point. I would personally like the mutation steps difference increases for 37, 67, 111 marker matches. If a person has hundreds or thousands of matches at a particular level, more matches might seem like added confusion. But I would like to think that at any level, if they got no matches, then FTDNA increased the mutation steps difference until they started getting matches. For example, if a person gets no matches at 9 steps on 111 markers, they could extend the search to 10 or 11 or 12 mutation steps until a minimum of say 20 matches come up in total. Or perhaps they could have an advances user option where matches at a few mutation steps higher could be searched for. Project administrators are normally experienced enough to understand the significance of a 10 step match at 111 markers with the same common ancestor listed. Another thought I have is that if 2 persons match at say 37 markers, and the TIP programme predicts common ancestor at say 15 generations, it would be good if customers could check the time to common ancestor predictions for the same two at 111 markers if both have tested 111 markers. At 37 markers the prediction might be 15 generations, say 500 years, well within the genealogical time frame, but if both have tested 111 markers, and 111 markers on TIP predicted relationship to be 30,000 years back, in my view that is significant information which the customers should be aware of........ instead of just being able to see the misleading match at lower marker levels. I have many hundreds of matches at 12 markers, but perhaps only a couple of dozen are related to me in the past 1000 years. If I could for these hundreds actually see which ones matched me closest at 67 or 111 markers it would enable me to better short list the more promising matches, or rather eliminate the insignificant matches. Another issue can be multi step mutations. In my family I have an apparent 4 step mutation at one marker which messes up the matching system, and eliminates matches. What I would like is to be able to search for matches at say 111 markers, but selectively eliminate one of the marker panels from the matching formula. For example if I could look at matches at 111 markers, but exclude say the 26 to 37 marker panel from the search, it would bring up relatives who had multi step mutations in that panel which prevented them from being within 10 steps on all 111 markers together. I have in rare situations seen multi step mutations in families of a dozen or more steps on a single marker...... that makes it almost impossible to find family matches in the FTDNA customer database. The purpose of genetic genealogy is to find related matches. If FTDNA fine tuned their customer database matching formula particularly at the higher marker levels, it would encourage more customers to test more markers. Why test 111 markers, if FTDNA set the matching formula at such a level as to eliminate finding even same surname matches with the same common ancestor? I am an optimist, so maintain a wish list. One day if the Gods and FTDNA are willing, some of my wishes may come true! John. Sent from my iPad > On 3/10/2015, at 9:59 pm, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > FTDNA did find the source of the problem. > Even though I specified that I wanted 111-matching, none of the potential matches matched at the 111 level above FTDNA's threshold. So it automatically down-sized the match to the 67 level, where it showed both 67 and 111 testers. But the difference level for them all was calculated on their match at the 67-marker level. > So when that closest shown matching person (who I later found differed by 8 at the 111 level) showed in the match list differing by 2, it was telling me (implicitly) that even though the person had tested at the 111 level, the difference of 2 that was shown was calculated only on that person's 67-level markers. > FTDNA is going to consider how to prevent such mis-understandings, either by making explicit what has happened or by some other means. > The more that I think about it, I would really like to be able to see the 111 candidates without the automatic drop-down to 67, even if they are distant by 8 or 9 or whatever threshold I would like to examine. When I want to see 111-only candidates, I really do want to see just 111's, regardless of their difference. Certainly the threshold has to be within some reasonable limit, so s not to display hundreds. But I would like to at least see what the nearest neighbor universe looks like at 111 without having it roll down to 67. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:44:24 -0400 > From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> > > Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem, did you get a response? It is a little scary. > >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose results just came in. >> FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 of 111 markers -- WOW!! >> But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. >> Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. >> What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

If there is enough DNA sample left, I would run the Family Finder (autosomal) DNA test on it. Much more info would come from that test about your father's side. IMO. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 3, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Christy Jordan-Frank via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I had a similar situation with a sample left on file with FTDNA for a > deceased uncle who had tested 25 markers in 2002. I called the company and > explained that he was the last test-eligible male in our line and asked if > I could assume his account and have his test upgraded to 111 markers. They > graciously allowed me access to his account so that I could change contact > info., password, etc. and in effect became the new account owner. They > further upgraded his test for me as requested, explaining, however, that > such an aged sample may not produce results. I'm happy to report that not > only did the old sample survive the rigors of testing, it more importantly > allowed a 30 year brick wall to tumble. I just wish that my uncle and > father had lived long enough to learn the outcome. > > Regardless, yes, it's possible to assume responsibility for a deceased > relative's account, at least with FTDNA. I would think, if nothing else, > it would be good business practice for Ancestry to do the same. A phone > call will tell you, either way. Good luck to the original poster! > > A related question: I too, confess to being a complete novice on Y-DNA > (the above example encompasses my complete experience). I was advised by > the haplogroup project to which my deceased uncle now belongs that I should > consider Big Y and/or additional SNP testing and was left with the > impression that this is possible even though the remaining test vial > previously on file was used for the 111 marker upgrade. Is this true? If > so, what does the lab use to work with if there is (now) nothing left on > file? > >

FTDNA did find the source of the problem. Even though I specified that I wanted 111-matching, none of the potential matches matched at the 111 level above FTDNA's threshold. So it automatically down-sized the match to the 67 level, where it showed both 67 and 111 testers. But the difference level for them all was calculated on their match at the 67-marker level. So when that closest shown matching person (who I later found differed by 8 at the 111 level) showed in the match list differing by 2, it was telling me (implicitly) that even though the person had tested at the 111 level, the difference of 2 that was shown was calculated only on that person's 67-level markers. FTDNA is going to consider how to prevent such mis-understandings, either by making explicit what has happened or by some other means. The more that I think about it, I would really like to be able to see the 111 candidates without the automatic drop-down to 67, even if they are distant by 8 or 9 or whatever threshold I would like to examine. When I want to see 111-only candidates, I really do want to see just 111's, regardless of their difference. Certainly the threshold has to be within some reasonable limit, so s not to display hundreds. But I would like to at least see what the nearest neighbor universe looks like at 111 without having it roll down to 67. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:44:24 -0400 From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem,  did you get a response?  It is a little scary. > On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose results just came in. > FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 of 111 markers -- WOW!! > But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. > Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. > What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up.

I had a similar situation with a sample left on file with FTDNA for a deceased uncle who had tested 25 markers in 2002. I called the company and explained that he was the last test-eligible male in our line and asked if I could assume his account and have his test upgraded to 111 markers. They graciously allowed me access to his account so that I could change contact info., password, etc. and in effect became the new account owner. They further upgraded his test for me as requested, explaining, however, that such an aged sample may not produce results. I'm happy to report that not only did the old sample survive the rigors of testing, it more importantly allowed a 30 year brick wall to tumble. I just wish that my uncle and father had lived long enough to learn the outcome. Regardless, yes, it's possible to assume responsibility for a deceased relative's account, at least with FTDNA. I would think, if nothing else, it would be good business practice for Ancestry to do the same. A phone call will tell you, either way. Good luck to the original poster! A related question: I too, confess to being a complete novice on Y-DNA (the above example encompasses my complete experience). I was advised by the haplogroup project to which my deceased uncle now belongs that I should consider Big Y and/or additional SNP testing and was left with the impression that this is possible even though the remaining test vial previously on file was used for the 111 marker upgrade. Is this true? If so, what does the lab use to work with if there is (now) nothing left on file? On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Karla Huebner via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear Tim, > > Thanks for the clarification--I am sure it will be a relief for many to > know that Ancestry does retain the samples. I had thought I remembered > reading that they did not or that it was unknown whether they did, so the > correction is needed. > > Of course, as you point out, it might not be easy for family members to > retrieve those samples later on. > > Karla > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Tim Janzen via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > Dear Karla, > > Ancestry.com does save the DNA left over after the AncestryDNA test is > run. > > See the information at > > http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart about > > this. > > However, getting access to the preserved sample could be challenging. > You > > would need to contact Ancestry.com about their procedures for > relinquishing > > DNA samples to family members. > > Tim Janzen > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner > via > > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 7:43 PM > > To: Wesley Johnston; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Obtaining y-DNA from a sample at Ancestry > > > > I don't think Ancestry keeps the DNA samples. If he hasn't been buried or > > cremated yet, the family could do a cheek swab to send to FTDNA... not > > perhaps an appealing thought, but if they really want to do a Y test I > > think > > that's their only option. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > Karla Huebner > calypsospots AT gmail.com > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Interesting. I'm now wondering how this might affect the results I see when my brother's 37-marker test drops to 25 for lack of good matches. He's done Big Y and some of the 25-marker matches are visible there, not that they look amazingly close. However, I'm a complete novice at Y DNA and will not be comparing markers any time soon. On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Wesley Johnston via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > FTDNA did find the source of the problem. > Even though I specified that I wanted 111-matching, none of the potential > matches matched at the 111 level above FTDNA's threshold. So it > automatically down-sized the match to the 67 level, where it showed both 67 > and 111 testers. But the difference level for them all was calculated on > their match at the 67-marker level. > So when that closest shown matching person (who I later found differed by > 8 at the 111 level) showed in the match list differing by 2, it was telling > me (implicitly) that even though the person had tested at the 111 level, > the difference of 2 that was shown was calculated only on that person's > 67-level markers. > FTDNA is going to consider how to prevent such mis-understandings, either > by making explicit what has happened or by some other means. > The more that I think about it, I would really like to be able to see the > 111 candidates without the automatic drop-down to 67, even if they are > distant by 8 or 9 or whatever threshold I would like to examine. When I > want to see 111-only candidates, I really do want to see just 111's, > regardless of their difference. Certainly the threshold has to be within > some reasonable limit, so s not to display hundreds. But I would like to at > least see what the nearest neighbor universe looks like at 111 without > having it roll down to 67. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:44:24 -0400 > From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> > > Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem, did you get a response? It > is a little scary. > > > On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose > results just came in. > > FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 > of 111 markers -- WOW!! > > But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it > turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. > > Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 > actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. > > What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by > only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something > this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

Dear Tim, Thanks for the clarification--I am sure it will be a relief for many to know that Ancestry does retain the samples. I had thought I remembered reading that they did not or that it was unknown whether they did, so the correction is needed. Of course, as you point out, it might not be easy for family members to retrieve those samples later on. Karla On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear Karla, > Ancestry.com does save the DNA left over after the AncestryDNA test is run. > See the information at > http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart about > this. > However, getting access to the preserved sample could be challenging. You > would need to contact Ancestry.com about their procedures for relinquishing > DNA samples to family members. > Tim Janzen > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner via > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 7:43 PM > To: Wesley Johnston; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Obtaining y-DNA from a sample at Ancestry > > I don't think Ancestry keeps the DNA samples. If he hasn't been buried or > cremated yet, the family could do a cheek swab to send to FTDNA... not > perhaps an appealing thought, but if they really want to do a Y test I > think > that's their only option. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

I think FTDNA should get away from looking at matches at each of the 12/25/37/67/111 levels. If someone has tested N markers then look for matches with anyone else testing N or MORE markers ... Overall that would be the best result I think ... Al On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:57 AM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Wesley, > > I have been a FTDNA customer for over a decade, and frequently use their > customer database matching programme. I have, in spite of my "experience" > been caught out from time to time exactly the same way you have been, > including as recently as a week ago. If my attention wavers during the > process, I sometimes miss the message coming on the screen that it found no > matches at the higher level, and it has changed down to a lower marker test. > > Over all, I think the matching process does work if I have enough coffee > in me to keep my attention levels up, and I don't really mind the programme > automatically switching down to lower marker levels automatically. Perhaps > they can improve the programme a little by making the switch to fewer > markers a little more obvious. It must be hard for new customers to > realise what is going on when a customer with 10 years experience of the > system still occasionally gets tripped up by it. > > My long standing wish list has been for FTDNA to widen the matching > criteria out to more mutation steps difference for each of the at least 37, > 67, 111 marker sets. I would even like it widened for the 12, and 25 > marker sets, but my interest in those marker levels is perhaps untypical, > and systems to some degree get set for majority type users, not eccentric > people. > > Recently I started a new FTDNA project, and as project administrator I > have in recent days comparing new participants. It strikes me that in 2 > large surname groups, each group with common ancestor about 800 years ago, > lots of clearly related people fall outside of the matching limits set by > FTDNA. For example, I find that at 111 markers many related persons of the > same surname have more mutation steps difference than the 9 step limit > which FTDNA use for the cut off point. I would personally like the > mutation steps difference increases for 37, 67, 111 marker matches. > > If a person has hundreds or thousands of matches at a particular level, > more matches might seem like added confusion. But I would like to think > that at any level, if they got no matches, then FTDNA increased the > mutation steps difference until they started getting matches. For example, > if a person gets no matches at 9 steps on 111 markers, they could extend > the search to 10 or 11 or 12 mutation steps until a minimum of say 20 > matches come up in total. Or perhaps they could have an advances user > option where matches at a few mutation steps higher could be searched for. > Project administrators are normally experienced enough to understand the > significance of a 10 step match at 111 markers with the same common > ancestor listed. > > Another thought I have is that if 2 persons match at say 37 markers, and > the TIP programme predicts common ancestor at say 15 generations, it would > be good if customers could check the time to common ancestor predictions > for the same two at 111 markers if both have tested 111 markers. At 37 > markers the prediction might be 15 generations, say 500 years, well within > the genealogical time frame, but if both have tested 111 markers, and 111 > markers on TIP predicted relationship to be 30,000 years back, in my view > that is significant information which the customers should be aware > of........ instead of just being able to see the misleading match at lower > marker levels. > > I have many hundreds of matches at 12 markers, but perhaps only a couple > of dozen are related to me in the past 1000 years. If I could for these > hundreds actually see which ones matched me closest at 67 or 111 markers > it would enable me to better short list the more promising matches, or > rather eliminate the insignificant matches. > > Another issue can be multi step mutations. In my family I have an > apparent 4 step mutation at one marker which messes up the matching system, > and eliminates matches. What I would like is to be able to search for > matches at say 111 markers, but selectively eliminate one of the marker > panels from the matching formula. For example if I could look at matches > at 111 markers, but exclude say the 26 to 37 marker panel from the search, > it would bring up relatives who had multi step mutations in that panel > which prevented them from being within 10 steps on all 111 markers > together. I have in rare situations seen multi step mutations in families > of a dozen or more steps on a single marker...... that makes it almost > impossible to find family matches in the FTDNA customer database. > > The purpose of genetic genealogy is to find related matches. If FTDNA > fine tuned their customer database matching formula particularly at the > higher marker levels, it would encourage more customers to test more > markers. Why test 111 markers, if FTDNA set the matching formula at such a > level as to eliminate finding even same surname matches with the same > common ancestor? > > I am an optimist, so maintain a wish list. One day if the Gods and FTDNA > are willing, some of my wishes may come true! > > John. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 3/10/2015, at 9:59 pm, Wesley Johnston via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > FTDNA did find the source of the problem. > > Even though I specified that I wanted 111-matching, none of the > potential matches matched at the 111 level above FTDNA's threshold. So it > automatically down-sized the match to the 67 level, where it showed both 67 > and 111 testers. But the difference level for them all was calculated on > their match at the 67-marker level. > > So when that closest shown matching person (who I later found differed > by 8 at the 111 level) showed in the match list differing by 2, it was > telling me (implicitly) that even though the person had tested at the 111 > level, the difference of 2 that was shown was calculated only on that > person's 67-level markers. > > FTDNA is going to consider how to prevent such mis-understandings, > either by making explicit what has happened or by some other means. > > The more that I think about it, I would really like to be able to see > the 111 candidates without the automatic drop-down to 67, even if they are > distant by 8 or 9 or whatever threshold I would like to examine. When I > want to see 111-only candidates, I really do want to see just 111's, > regardless of their difference. Certainly the threshold has to be within > some reasonable limit, so s not to display hundreds. But I would like to at > least see what the nearest neighbor universe looks like at 111 without > having it roll down to 67. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:44:24 -0400 > > From: David Hamill <dnhamill@aol.com> > > > > Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem, did you get a response? > It is a little scary. > > > >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > >> > >> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> > >> I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose > results just came in. > >> FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 > of 111 markers -- WOW!! > >> But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it > turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. > >> Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 > actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. > >> What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by > only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something > this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA?

I don't think Ancestry keeps the DNA samples. If he hasn't been buried or cremated yet, the family could do a cheek swab to send to FTDNA... not perhaps an appealing thought, but if they really want to do a Y test I think that's their only option. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Wesley Johnston via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > A friend had her father tested at Ancestry, which was the autosomal test. > He has just passed away, and I just learned of this. > His tree on his mother's side is fairly robust. But on his father's side, > there are only his father and his father's parents. So a y-DNA test from > his sample is something they would really like to do. But I know that > Ancestry has stopped doing y-DNA tests. > What suggestions does anyone have for how to deal with this, so that we > can have his sample tested for y-DNA even though it is at Ancestry, since > it is now too late for him to provide another sample to FTDNA? > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

Dear Karla, Ancestry.com does save the DNA left over after the AncestryDNA test is run. See the information at http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart about this. However, getting access to the preserved sample could be challenging. You would need to contact Ancestry.com about their procedures for relinquishing DNA samples to family members. Tim Janzen -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner via Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 7:43 PM To: Wesley Johnston; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Obtaining y-DNA from a sample at Ancestry I don't think Ancestry keeps the DNA samples. If he hasn't been buried or cremated yet, the family could do a cheek swab to send to FTDNA... not perhaps an appealing thought, but if they really want to do a Y test I think that's their only option.

Guessing you asked FTDNA about this problem, did you get a response? It is a little scary. > On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:00 AM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose results just came in. > FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 of 111 markers -- WOW!! > But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. > Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. > What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up.

DYS464 is not one of the errors. So far, I have checked out three matches in detail, and all of them have an actual number of differences 6 greater than the FTDNA match list shows them. Here is a comparison of two people who FTDNA's match list shows as differing by 6 but actually differ by 12. 1 - DYS385 (Person A 13-14 vs Person B 12-14)2 - DYS459 (9-9 vs 8-9)3 - DYS460 (10 vs 11)4 - DYA534 (17 vs 16)5 - DYS444 (13 vs 12)6 - DYS710 (34 vs 33)7 - DYS549 (13 vs 11)8 - DYS712 (22 vs 23)9 - DYS650 (18 vs 19)10 - DYS513 (13 vs 12)11 - DYS561 (12 vs 15)12 - DYS461 (13 vs 12) From: Stephanie Ray <stephanieray52@gmail.com> To: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com>; "genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com" <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA y-DNA - big difference errors In DYS464, the order of the values does not matter i.e. 14-16-18-20 is the same as 18-14-20-16, so maybe the "error" lies there. On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Wesley Johnston via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: I am administering the y-111 account of one of our family members whose results just came in. FTDNA shows his match list with one match differing from him by only 2 of 111 markers -- WOW!! But once we were actually able to compare the actual STR results, it turns out that they have 8 markers on which they differ. Another match who the FTDNA match list shows differing only by 6 actually differs by 12 when you look at the allele values. What is going on with FTDNA that they are showing matches differing by only 2 of 111 markers when the reality is that they differ by 8? Something this simple and fundamental should not be something so screwed up. ------------------------------- 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

In my case, I have several of them, and while the ancestor they suggest is frequently wrong by paper, a close relative is correct. 100% of the time. All these verify giant areas of my paper tree. So far the common people are all in Adventurers of Purse and Person or are involved with my philanderer(?)/bigamist(?) Irish ancestor in the hills of Alabama. None, in fact no autosomal DNA at all, has ever found a new, previously unknown, ancestor. And I have matches with huge matching segments that I can't find people in common with. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karla Huebner via Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:46 AM To: m.j.Fisher@btinternet.com; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] What do I do with this DNA circle stuff Hi Mike, I think the key novice term for Ancestry Circles is UNRELIABLE. Not that they cannot be useful, but they are clearly problematic. That said, I still sort of wish one would appear for my mother. She has a very detailed Norwegian tree and her Scottish ancestry is pretty decent back to the 18th century. She has matches whose trees ought to contribute to circles, too. Karla On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Michael Fisher via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi > > I'm confused with Circles and Ancestry ICW (shared matches) !!! > > I have compared all the members of my only Circle with their Shared > Matches and they ALL have Shared Matches with a Cousin in my 4th-6th > matches range. But when I look at that cousin with all the Shared > Matches in my Circle it shows "No Shared Matches". > > Please explain in a DNA novice terms > > Mike > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com ------------------------------- 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