Clinton, this was the subject of some exhaustive debate over the Christmas holidays on the DNA and R1b mailing lists! What I myself would like to emphasize is that 37 markers (or even 12) may be plenty when you have a DNA match with the SAME surname. If, however, you have matches with different surnames (generally from the same subclade, i.e., families that are related back before the introduction of surnames), then even 111 markers may not be enough to tell them apart. The key is the surname, which sort of serves as a genetic marker in its own right, and of course which fits in beautifully with the goals of this organization. Best regards, Stephanie Admin, Cobb DNA project Member #5587, Guild of One Name Studies On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Clinton Slayton <cslayton19@windstream.net> wrote: > Tanya, I second the previous poster: you need to get a participant to test > 67-111 markers. > > You are indeed at the first steps, and any single result can be a false > paternal event. For that reason, if your participant has a male cousin, that > is a good target, while a brother is usually not. Spread your net as far as > possible from the one you have. Also, keep an eye on the (small) RIGDON and > (perhaps future) RICHEN results. The RICHENS look like derived from REICHEN > (German) but this is just the sort of morphing (Ridgeon-Richen) that takes > place in American perhaps more than in Britain. > > The 12-to-46 markers tests are useful for corralling haplotypes, but when it > comes to interpreting surname "pools," matches below 67 markers are poor for > genetic distance in case of non-Ridgeons, while a 111 match even without the > surname can be a possible clue to a commonality somewhere in the past. > > The issue with 111 is of course the cost and that so few (relatively) have > done them, but the sale is on! > > I have just paid to upgrade my personal 67 markers to 111, even though I > already have them! The STR values derived from Big Y will not show up on my > FTDNA STR grid, and since I am now at the point in my Project where > refinement is needed over corralling, I feel hypocritical asking for that > level for New Members when they cannot see mine. The only solution is to > explicitly upgrade my previous STR test. > > I cannot overemphasize how important the more-results-the-more-accurate when > it comes to as surname-based YDNA Project. Please consider 67 the lower > limit for that purpose. > > Clinton Slayton(6996) > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Tanya Kimber > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:54 PM > To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [G] Y-DNA Results question > > Hi all > > I've just got the Y-DNA results back from FTDNA for my first Ridgeon > participant. I know that I now need to do a lot of reading and research > myself but wanted to put a question 'out there' for comment as I am a bit > concerned! > > My participant has been allocated a Haplogroup and has a lot of matches at > the 12 marker level, but only 1 at the 25 marker level and none at all at > the 37 marker level, which I understand is quite rare. My concern is what > this means! I am worried that perhaps this means that the sample wasn't very > good and it has been possible to extract only limited information from it. > > I would be really grateful for any views/knowledge/ideas/comments on this > outcome as I guess this may affect where I go next with my study. > > Many thanks. > > Tanya (6296) > > ridgeon@one-name.org > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Stephanie, I cannot agree completely but I understand the statements. My response to Ms Kimber was because she published a superb JOONS article about her RIDGEONS following my article about surname origins, and I tend to provide advice to individuals rather than join the fray. I apparently do not do genealogy or genetics like anyone else on most of these lists. (I am writing a book on this subject at the moment and was working on it when I decided to catch up on e-mail.) I started with under 46 markers when they were all that was available. It was better than a poke in the eye, but when my growing project showed TWO pools of different haplotypes for the same surname(and variants), and attained about 50 participants, the refinement offered by more than 46 markers became more and more necessary. Now I am constantly being asked by some why I did not encourage higher marker results instead of trying to save the sampler/sponsor's money! (EXAMPLE: My surname and that of my wife's grandfather's surname are virtually identical, but we [me and her uncle] are on different branches of the I haplogroup. Not related in any meaningful way. A member of her family live in the same town with me and spells his surname the same as I spell mine.) I cannot agree that the common surname alone at 12 markers is reliable, certainly not in the US, at least. I cannot agree that a surname is a genetic marker in the U.S. There were virtually no constraints in the US for adopting any old name before about 1918(World War I and the Income tax.) And there are many small communities where men share the same 12 markers (haplotypes), but where surnames were adopted without regard to any genetic connections at all. I have two 12-marker men in my project and their DOCUMENTATION/ORAL HISTORY is what makes them fit into the project, not simply their surnames in combination with YDNA. So while I agree that the idea of pursuing a One Name Study can be begun by inexpensive low-marker differentiation, it limits the future utility of such projects. I recognize the value of being able to afford to offer more sponsored results with 12-37 markers, but as a Project grows, the refinement element may begin to take on more importance than quantity of samplers. I feel the pain of the massive Rb1 results to be filtered out compared to our I groups, (the two British-based surname samplers we have so far are R-M269) but I would still suggest that if one is starting out at Step One in tracing a either Y line or surname, it is better served by the higher resolution for genetic distances than 37. Any project, no matter how modest it expects to remain, may grow beyond simple sorting of lines, and questions may arise about accuracy of genetic distance and the possibility of traceable later mutations running along a particular branch. I do agree that it is easier to see and mentally group the less-than-67 results, and also agree that 111-up-to Big Y or other SNP tests constitute a huge expense and takes one into another realm of interpretation (usually someone else's). 67 markers as a recommended test became my go-to position because it seems to me the most cost-effective. This is my opinion after 20 years of dealing with about seven different Y lines with the same surname. Clinton Slayton (6995) -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Ray Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:39 PM To: GOONStgll Subject: Re: [G] Y-DNA Results question Clinton, this was the subject of some exhaustive debate over the Christmas holidays on the DNA and R1b mailing lists! What I myself would like to emphasize is that 37 markers (or even 12) may be plenty when you have a DNA match with the SAME surname. If, however, you have matches with different surnames (generally from the same subclade, i.e., families that are related back before the introduction of surnames), then even 111 markers may not be enough to tell them apart. The key is the surname, which sort of serves as a genetic marker in its own right, and of course which fits in beautifully with the goals of this organization. Best regards, Stephanie Admin, Cobb DNA project Member #5587, Guild of One Name Studies On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Clinton Slayton <cslayton19@windstream.net> wrote: > Tanya, I second the previous poster: you need to get a participant to test > 67-111 markers. > > You are indeed at the first steps, and any single result can be a false > paternal event. For that reason, if your participant has a male cousin, that > is a good target, while a brother is usually not. Spread your net as far as > possible from the one you have. Also, keep an eye on the (small) RIGDON and > (perhaps future) RICHEN results. The RICHENS look like derived from REICHEN > (German) but this is just the sort of morphing (Ridgeon-Richen) that takes > place in American perhaps more than in Britain. > > The 12-to-46 markers tests are useful for corralling haplotypes, but when it > comes to interpreting surname "pools," matches below 67 markers are poor for > genetic distance in case of non-Ridgeons, while a 111 match even without the > surname can be a possible clue to a commonality somewhere in the past. > > The issue with 111 is of course the cost and that so few (relatively) have > done them, but the sale is on! > > I have just paid to upgrade my personal 67 markers to 111, even though I > already have them! The STR values derived from Big Y will not show up on my > FTDNA STR grid, and since I am now at the point in my Project where > refinement is needed over corralling, I feel hypocritical asking for that > level for New Members when they cannot see mine. The only solution is to > explicitly upgrade my previous STR test. > > I cannot overemphasize how important the more-results-the-more-accurate when > it comes to as surname-based YDNA Project. Please consider 67 the lower > limit for that purpose. > > Clinton Slayton(6996) > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+cslayton19=windstream.net@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Tanya Kimber > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:54 PM > To: GOONS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [G] Y-DNA Results question > > Hi all > > I've just got the Y-DNA results back from FTDNA for my first Ridgeon > participant. I know that I now need to do a lot of reading and research > myself but wanted to put a question 'out there' for comment as I am a bit > concerned! > > My participant has been allocated a Haplogroup and has a lot of matches at > the 12 marker level, but only 1 at the 25 marker level and none at all at > the 37 marker level, which I understand is quite rare. My concern is what > this means! I am worried that perhaps this means that the sample wasn't very > good and it has been possible to extract only limited information from it. > > I would be really grateful for any views/knowledge/ideas/comments on this > outcome as I guess this may affect where I go next with my study. > > Many thanks. > > Tanya (6296) > > ridgeon@one-name.org > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus