Morning again, I concur with Cliff's assessment below though he missed out the 37 marker which is the minimum to assist in identifying a specific family grouping unless he was meaning 37 rather than 32. Some of our members have taken the test promoted by the Scotsman newspaper and operated by Scotlands DNA. The aim of this project is really just to identify the haplogroup and therefore origins of the modern Scottish population. It doesn’t produce any of the STR markers which is what tells 2 men if and how closely they are related (via 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111 distinct markers). There are a few exceptions in the Scotlands DNA project and that only occurs where a man has such a rare Haplogroup within the Scottish population that the statistical chances of them being related correspondingly increase. For example my uncle from Nairn and 2 other Sutherlands, one from Biggar and the other originally from Thurso were an exact match. The report each received was identical except for their names. However having a Flemish Haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b commonly known as P312 or DF27, Scotlands DNA state in the report that they do not test most of the downside markers because they are so rare among the Scottish population. In fact it is substantially less than 1%. The other 2 have also taken the FTDNA test. They are the original and current default result against whom I measure all others. They match with one another at 20 generations at 80.92%. To me this indicates one is descended from the Sutherland of Forse family and the other from the Sutherland of Duffus family. They have to go back 20-22 generations to Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland whose eldest son's younger son founded the Forse line and whose younger son founded the Duffus line. I am sure other tests are good in their own way but as someone who has not taken a test (since my YDNA is English) but is working with the results, there is currently no test nearly as good as the FTDNA one. Cheers Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston Sent: 07 October 2013 22:20 To: Maisie Egger; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lanark] LANARK Digest, Vol 8, Issue 165 Maisie,   We get what we pay for with Y-DNA testing, only the testing companies do not tell us that ;-)   As I have said elsewhere many times, the only company worth testing with is FTDNA.  They have the largest and best support system.  Period.   Here is my take on the different tests available (my opinion only):   12-markers test:  just whets your appetite for more testing.  About the only ones who get useful information from this test are National Geographic and the I haplogroup Johnston/es [said tongue-in-cheek as we do have a very distinctive Y-DNA signature - I can tell if you are kin by looking at the first 4 markers - the others are a bonus ;-) ]  Not worth the effort to take, IMO, for genealogical purposes.   25-markers test:  about as useless as the old saying that my grandfather used about bulls, teats and how worthless they were on a bull ;-)   32-markers test:  helpful to eliminate more distant connections and reaffirm closer connections.  A decent test, but has too many gaps.   67-markers test:  the best test to take initially as it will put you on a family branch if enough have tested in your haplogroup for branches to start showing up.   111-markers test:  we are still working out the value of this upgrade.  So far it appears to be very useful for sorting close kin, say within 2-6 generations.  If enough have this number of markers tested in your haplogroup it is very helpful.   Should you test with any other company than FTDNA, you need to be aware that the alternative-company tests do not include all of the same markers as those done by FTDNA.  This means that in order for one to compare an alternative-source company's Y-DNA results to that of FTDNA's results one will have to buy an additional make-up test from FTDNA in order to make a valid comparison.  This takes more time in addition to more money.   Good hunting,   Cliff.  

Mark,   Ach, thanks for spotting my typo.  Yes, it should be 37 markers!  I've got a wee bit of egg on my face now ;-)  lol...got to wipe it off somehow :-)   Now comes my excuse - arthritis.  I've bought Dragon software and installed it.  I only need to start using it - got to get over the initial "software shock"...lol...  I am making far too many errors, so much so that my wpm are probably down from 60 to 10, not good...   Cliff. From: Mark Sutherland-Fisher (HFH) <[email protected]> To: 'Cliff. Johnston' <[email protected]>; 'Maisie Egger' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:47 AM Subject: RE: Differing DNA tests Morning again, I concur with Cliff's assessment below though he missed out the 37 marker which is the minimum to assist in identifying a specific family grouping unless he was meaning 37 rather than 32. Some of our members have taken the test promoted by the Scotsman newspaper and operated by Scotlands DNA. The aim of this project is really just to identify the haplogroup and therefore origins of the modern Scottish population. It doesn’t produce any of the STR markers which is what tells 2 men if and how closely they are related (via 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111 distinct markers). There are a few exceptions in the Scotlands DNA project and that only occurs where a man has such a rare Haplogroup within the Scottish population that the statistical chances of them being related correspondingly increase. For example my uncle from Nairn and 2 other Sutherlands, one from Biggar and the other originally from Thurso were an exact match. The report each received was identical except for their names. However having a Flemish Haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b commonly known as P312 or DF27, Scotlands DNA state in the report that they do not test most of the downside markers because they are so rare among the Scottish population. In fact it is substantially less than 1%. The other 2 have also taken the FTDNA test. They are the original and current default result against whom I measure all others. They match with one another at 20 generations at 80.92%. To me this indicates one is descended from the Sutherland of Forse family and the other from the Sutherland of Duffus family. They have to go back 20-22 generations to Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland whose eldest son's younger son founded the Forse line and whose younger son founded the Duffus line. I am sure other tests are good in their own way but as someone who has not taken a test (since my YDNA is English) but is working with the results, there is currently no test nearly as good as the FTDNA one. Cheers Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston Sent: 07 October 2013 22:20 To: Maisie Egger; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lanark] LANARK Digest, Vol 8, Issue 165 Maisie,   We get what we pay for with Y-DNA testing, only the testing companies do not tell us that ;-)   As I have said elsewhere many times, the only company worth testing with is FTDNA.  They have the largest and best support system.  Period.   Here is my take on the different tests available (my opinion only):   12-markers test:  just whets your appetite for more testing.  About the only ones who get useful information from this test are National Geographic and the I haplogroup Johnston/es [said tongue-in-cheek as we do have a very distinctive Y-DNA signature - I can tell if you are kin by looking at the first 4 markers - the others are a bonus ;-) ]  Not worth the effort to take, IMO, for genealogical purposes.   25-markers test:  about as useless as the old saying that my grandfather used about bulls, teats and how worthless they were on a bull ;-)   32-markers test:  helpful to eliminate more distant connections and reaffirm closer connections.  A decent test, but has too many gaps.   67-markers test:  the best test to take initially as it will put you on a family branch if enough have tested in your haplogroup for branches to start showing up.   111-markers test:  we are still working out the value of this upgrade.  So far it appears to be very useful for sorting close kin, say within 2-6 generations.  If enough have this number of markers tested in your haplogroup it is very helpful.   Should you test with any other company than FTDNA, you need to be aware that the alternative-company tests do not include all of the same markers as those done by FTDNA.  This means that in order for one to compare an alternative-source company's Y-DNA results to that of FTDNA's results one will have to buy an additional make-up test from FTDNA in order to make a valid comparison.  This takes more time in addition to more money.   Good hunting,   Cliff.

Evening Cliff, Given the years you have happily shared, educated and on occasion entertained the rest of us in the group, if we couldn’t spot that you were obviously having a wee techie issue, we wouldn’t be worthy of the status of esteemed colleagues and fellow enthusiasts. I hope you are well. Isn’t technology scary in the hands of we mere mortals J All the best from a cooler Easter Ross, autumn finally approaches! Mark From: Cliff. Johnston [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 October 2013 17:44 To: [email protected]; 'Maisie Egger'; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Differing DNA tests Mark, Ach, thanks for spotting my typo. Yes, it should be 37 markers! I've got a wee bit of egg on my face now ;-) lol...got to wipe it off somehow :-) Now comes my excuse - arthritis. I've bought Dragon software and installed it. I only need to start using it - got to get over the initial "software shock"...lol... I am making far too many errors, so much so that my wpm are probably down from 60 to 10, not good... Cliff. From: Mark Sutherland-Fisher (HFH) <[email protected]> To: 'Cliff. Johnston' <[email protected]>; 'Maisie Egger' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:47 AM Subject: RE: Differing DNA tests Morning again, I concur with Cliff's assessment below though he missed out the 37 marker which is the minimum to assist in identifying a specific family grouping unless he was meaning 37 rather than 32. Some of our members have taken the test promoted by the Scotsman newspaper and operated by Scotlands DNA. The aim of this project is really just to identify the haplogroup and therefore origins of the modern Scottish population. It doesn’t produce any of the STR markers which is what tells 2 men if and how closely they are related (via 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111 distinct markers). There are a few exceptions in the Scotlands DNA project and that only occurs where a man has such a rare Haplogroup within the Scottish population that the statistical chances of them being related correspondingly increase. For example my uncle from Nairn and 2 other Sutherlands, one from Biggar and the other originally from Thurso were an exact match. The report each received was identical except for their names. However having a Flemish Haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b commonly known as P312 or DF27, Scotlands DNA state in the report that they do not test most of the downside markers because they are so rare among the Scottish population. In fact it is substantially less than 1%. The other 2 have also taken the FTDNA test. They are the original and current default result against whom I measure all others. They match with one another at 20 generations at 80.92%. To me this indicates one is descended from the Sutherland of Forse family and the other from the Sutherland of Duffus family. They have to go back 20-22 generations to Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland whose eldest son's younger son founded the Forse line and whose younger son founded the Duffus line. I am sure other tests are good in their own way but as someone who has not taken a test (since my YDNA is English) but is working with the results, there is currently no test nearly as good as the FTDNA one. Cheers Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston Sent: 07 October 2013 22:20 To: Maisie Egger; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lanark] LANARK Digest, Vol 8, Issue 165 Maisie, We get what we pay for with Y-DNA testing, only the testing companies do not tell us that ;-) As I have said elsewhere many times, the only company worth testing with is FTDNA. They have the largest and best support system. Period. Here is my take on the different tests available (my opinion only): 12-markers test: just whets your appetite for more testing. About the only ones who get useful information from this test are National Geographic and the I haplogroup Johnston/es [said tongue-in-cheek as we do have a very distinctive Y-DNA signature - I can tell if you are kin by looking at the first 4 markers - the others are a bonus ;-) ] Not worth the effort to take, IMO, for genealogical purposes. 25-markers test: about as useless as the old saying that my grandfather used about bulls, teats and how worthless they were on a bull ;-) 32-markers test: helpful to eliminate more distant connections and reaffirm closer connections. A decent test, but has too many gaps. 67-markers test: the best test to take initially as it will put you on a family branch if enough have tested in your haplogroup for branches to start showing up. 111-markers test: we are still working out the value of this upgrade. So far it appears to be very useful for sorting close kin, say within 2-6 generations. If enough have this number of markers tested in your haplogroup it is very helpful. Should you test with any other company than FTDNA, you need to be aware that the alternative-company tests do not include all of the same markers as those done by FTDNA. This means that in order for one to compare an alternative-source company's Y-DNA results to that of FTDNA's results one will have to buy an additional make-up test from FTDNA in order to make a valid comparison. This takes more time in addition to more money. Good hunting, Cliff.