You did not mention the most unusual or rare feature of your Isles-Scot L126+ haplotype. DYS640=8 I have never seen before. Standard value is 11 for this clade. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: BowesSurnames Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [yDNAhgI] DYS425=Null in FTDNA I2b1 This occurs in one of my Bowes light blue groups, Scotland to Ireland. One has a 0 and the other simply shows an empty spot. Should that be 0 also? Do I need to have FTDNA rerun it? Is this unique or meaningful in any way? http://www.familytreedna.com/public/bowes/default.aspx?section=yresults Thanks in advance, Martha Bowes ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You are in a clade and haplogroup L126+ Isles-Scot. Everyone in the clade has a null at DYS425. It is a trademark for the group. It means there is some mutation near the DYS425 which makes it impossible to read the STR by standard means. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: BowesSurnames Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [yDNAhgI] DYS425=Null in FTDNA I2b1 This occurs in one of my Bowes light blue groups, Scotland to Ireland. One has a 0 and the other simply shows an empty spot. Should that be 0 also? Do I need to have FTDNA rerun it? Is this unique or meaningful in any way? http://www.familytreedna.com/public/bowes/default.aspx?section=yresults Thanks in advance, Martha Bowes ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Main problem with FTDNA readings of Geno2 results is that no calls get lost in the negatives; only "positives" are reported and sometimes what is positive is in error. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: JB McCrummen Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 11:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion Ken- Is your explanation below, then, the reason that the GENO 2.0 derived reading on L380 is not reported by FTDNA in their conversion process? If not, have you found other GENO 2.0 readings not reported in the FTDNA conversion? JB McCrummen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <[1][email protected]> Date: Fri, January 03, 2014 3:33 pm To: <[2][email protected]> I'm afraid everyone is AA for L380. Whether that is technically ancestral or derived is of secondary importance it seems; it could have mutated somewhere upstream in the tree rendering IJK as well as R haplogroups as derived AA. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: [3]http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: JB MCCRUMMEN Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 12:53 PM To: YDNA I_ROOTSWEB LIST Subject: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion In previous post, Diana mentioned a missing derived GENO 2.0 result (L380+) in the Project I conversion by FTDNA. I checked the FTDNA GENO 2.0 conversion for my results and L380+ is also missing in the FTDNA conversion table. My GENO 2.0 L380 reading is derived ( AA and ISOGG/Krahn Browser confirms this is derived). Two Questions: 1- Are there other GENO 2.0 participants whose readings (L380 and other SNPs) missing and/or not accurately converted? 2- Are there other GENO 2.0 SNP readings missing and/or not accurately converted? JB MCCRUMMEN FTDNA KIT: 75432 --------------- Previous posting from Diana: From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[4][email protected]> Subject: [yDNAhgI] Rasey I2 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:04:28 -0500 Well, duhhh. I could just go look at the ISOGG tree, so I did. Given that he's Z78-, it does surprise me that he's also CTS6433-. But I guess what does surprise me is that his L380+ is still not on the page, even at the bottom as a private SNP. My first impulse is to order CTS1977 and L1290, but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just pop for the BigY, instead of this drip, drip, drip ordering of a la carte SNPs. Diana ----------------- ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [5][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/ 4. mailto:[email protected] 5. mailto:[email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Actually, if mutation rate for average snp in the BigY is 2/100 million, then BigY would produce a snp about every 150 years on average along a tree branch line. So the number of additional snps from BigY would still be very impressive --- another 50 to 100 phyloequivalent snps. We should know in a month or so I hope. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [yDNAhgI] Geno2 SNPs phy/equiv to M253 Using the many Geno2 raw data results I isolated the snps which appear phyloequivalent to M253 right now. There are about 50 of them. Some are also seen on the Chromo2 list of same. The Z131+ and DF29- Z131- persons with Geno2 results show derived for all of these. If that ancestral line from DF29 back to the beginning of haplogroup I is 18,000 years long, 50 snps means on average about one every 360 years. That has implications about how far back can the Z131 branching point be and about our chances of using AS1212 or AS121210 person to split one of these 50 snps off from equivalence. How many more such snps phyloequivalent to M253 will be found with BigY, I don’t know, but it does not seem like it will be a very large number unless we don’t understand the snp mutation rate. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Using the many Geno2 raw data results I isolated the snps which appear phyloequivalent to M253 right now. There are about 50 of them. Some are also seen on the Chromo2 list of same. The Z131+ and DF29- Z131- persons with Geno2 results show derived for all of these. If that ancestral line from DF29 back to the beginning of haplogroup I is 18,000 years long, 50 snps means on average about one every 360 years. That has implications about how far back can the Z131 branching point be and about our chances of using AS1212 or AS121210 person to split one of these 50 snps off from equivalence. How many more such snps phyloequivalent to M253 will be found with BigY, I don’t know, but it does not seem like it will be a very large number unless we don’t understand the snp mutation rate. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

> From: Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... <snip> > > > > > > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also > > > > appears parallel to CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably > > > > L1439+, but not necessarily, so at least one of them needs > > > > to test it: > > > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > > > > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So > > > anything downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] > > > > Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* > > L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer > > to prove it. > > [[With that attitude you will have to assume every dna sample is unknown > for any snp not tested. You will have no tree beyond your explicit tested > dna samples. For the next dna sample could always have a back mutation no > matter how improbable and violate the tree structure, making your "... so at > least one...." proviso useless. In fact your constructed tree does not even > fulfill your attitude, because you do not test each sample for every > upstream snp back to Adam. Who knows, any particular dna sample could have > had one or more back mutations on upstream snps. There seems nothing > productive about such an attitude. KN]] It's not an "attitude," Ken, it's a methodology. It's called, "cladistics": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics I believe you have stated several times over the years that you are not engaged in cladistics, and each time I have agreed with you that you are not. But I am. In a cladistic analysis you *do* need to test, not assume. Technically, every individual should be scored for every character in the matrix, but I'm not remotely suggesting that level of rigor. What I am suggesting is that at least *one* person in each clade test their SNP patrilineal line, which is certainly not a stringent requirement, but surely a minimal one for a well supported cladogram. As for not going "back to Adam," I have set the starting point arbitrarily at M253. M253+ is a manageable clade and of interest to me because my maternal grandfather is I1. It's a perfectly legitimate approach to take. If one couldn't set a limit to the analysis, how could you stop at "Adam"? Why not include all the primates or all the mammals? Everyone has set some kind of arbitrary starting point for their analysis. Yours appears to be just one level higher, at Hg I. I'm sorry you can't see the "productivity" in a classic cladistic analysis. It's a long-accepted, fundamental methodology in phylogenetic analysis. Diana

I'll save our project money until we get more downstream snps available. Ta. Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com On 20/01/14 14:20, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > I did not notice you tested Z2539. Yes, that's the same as testing CTS7362. > So you remain Z60+ generic. If you have money to burn you could test Z141 > as it is different snp than Z140. But we have not found anyone previously > who has split these two snps. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: LornaMoa > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 5:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider > ordering CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 > > Kenneth, > Just checking I fully understand. > We've already tested > > Z2539- > so does your > CTS7362= Z2539 > NOT mean that they are equivalent? > > Lorna Henderson > http://LornaHen.com > > On 20/01/14 13:10, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: >> How do you know whether or not your Z60+ haplotype is on that CTS7362 >> branch >> or not? You apparently are Z140- >> Since your haplotype looks generic, only way to know is to test CTS7362. >> You could be brave and try a snp further downstream, but if negative, then >> you must try the other downstream branches. >> >> >> >> Kenneth Nordtvedt >> >> Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: >> http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LornaMoa >> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:59 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider >> ordering CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 >> >> Thanks Kenneth. >> I interpreted your diagram where it labels the branch as >> >> CTS7362= Z2539 >> that no additional benefit would accrue. >> Is that not the case? >> >> Lorna Henderson >> http://LornaHen.com >> >> On 20/01/14 12:34, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: >>> What about CTS7362 test? >>> >>> >>> >>> Kenneth Nordtvedt >>> >>> Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: >>> http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LornaMoa >>> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:25 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider >>> ordering >>> CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 >>> >>> Hi, >>> Surfacing to see where next please for the kit representing our clutch >>> of matching RUNCIMANs >>> >>> Kit 172347 is shown in the group >>> I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider ordering CTS7362/Z2539, >>> Z140 >>> >>> And has so far tested >>> Z59+, Z60+, Z140-, Z2539- >>> >>> Looking at >>> http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx (19 Dec) >>> I interpret that as Z60+ is divided by >>> Z140/Z141 >>> and CTS7362/Z2539 >>> >>> I assume that there is no point in testing Z141 if Z140 was negative. >>> >>> ISOGG (18 Jan) shows >>> • • • • • *I1a2a1* S337/Z60, S439/Z61, Z62 >>> • • • • • • *I1a2a1** - >>> • • • • • • *I1a2a1a* S440/Z140, Z141 >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a** - >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1* S1953/Z2535 >>> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1** - >>> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1a* L338 >>> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1b* CTS10937/Z2538 >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a2* F2642/S2169 >>> • • • • • • *I1a2a1b* S247/Z73 >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b** - >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b1* L1302 >>> • • • • • • *I1a2a1c* L573 >>> • • • • • • *I1a2a1d* L1248 >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d** - >>> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d1* L803 >>> >>> which indicates (to me) S247/Z73 or L573 or L1248 would be possibilities. >>> >>> Advice please. >>> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I just had this exchange with Phil Goff: John, I'm out of town but will check when I return home. I know one SNP we evaluated recently was lacking required evidence. It might have been this one as I think it involved lack of testing by M227 men. I will verify. Thanks, Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: John M Rhodes Date:01/18/2014 1:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: L69 Hello Phil, I just found the January 6, 2014 update for the I-haplogroup ISOGG tree. It still does not include L69 below CTS6364 and above M227. John M Rhodes John M Rhodes On 2014-01-20, at 1:12 PM, Elizabeth Britton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I show Driver M227 = GG+ and also L69+, but one always worries about strand > issues with multiple labs now supplying results. > > **************************** > > Yes, we need to find out why they are placing M227 upstream from L69.1, but I'm not sure where to go to get that information. I assume that whoever is responsible for the Tree may has results from Full Genomes that we haven't yet seen. And they must have something for CTS8582, too, although I haven't been able to find anyone who is positive. > > Lindsey > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As far as I know, only two men in AS7E1 have been tested for L1274--Loyd (who is a Childers) and Childers (WTY). I think more testing is in order here to determine whether L1274 splits or tags AS7E1. If so, which candidates would be best for the next round of testing? Although there are quite a few surnames in the group, at least several of them may be Childers by different names. Lindsey

Kenneth, Just checking I fully understand. We've already tested Z2539- so does your CTS7362= Z2539 NOT mean that they are equivalent? Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com On 20/01/14 13:10, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > How do you know whether or not your Z60+ haplotype is on that CTS7362 branch > or not? You apparently are Z140- > Since your haplotype looks generic, only way to know is to test CTS7362. > You could be brave and try a snp further downstream, but if negative, then > you must try the other downstream branches. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: LornaMoa > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider > ordering CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 > > Thanks Kenneth. > I interpreted your diagram where it labels the branch as > > CTS7362= Z2539 > that no additional benefit would accrue. > Is that not the case? > > Lorna Henderson > http://LornaHen.com > > On 20/01/14 12:34, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: >> What about CTS7362 test? >> >> >> >> Kenneth Nordtvedt >> >> Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: >> http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LornaMoa >> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:25 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider >> ordering >> CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 >> >> Hi, >> Surfacing to see where next please for the kit representing our clutch >> of matching RUNCIMANs >> >> Kit 172347 is shown in the group >> I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider ordering CTS7362/Z2539, >> Z140 >> >> And has so far tested >> Z59+, Z60+, Z140-, Z2539- >> >> Looking at >> http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx (19 Dec) >> I interpret that as Z60+ is divided by >> Z140/Z141 >> and CTS7362/Z2539 >> >> I assume that there is no point in testing Z141 if Z140 was negative. >> >> ISOGG (18 Jan) shows >> • • • • • *I1a2a1* S337/Z60, S439/Z61, Z62 >> • • • • • • *I1a2a1** - >> • • • • • • *I1a2a1a* S440/Z140, Z141 >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a** - >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1* S1953/Z2535 >> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1** - >> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1a* L338 >> • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1b* CTS10937/Z2538 >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a2* F2642/S2169 >> • • • • • • *I1a2a1b* S247/Z73 >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b** - >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b1* L1302 >> • • • • • • *I1a2a1c* L573 >> • • • • • • *I1a2a1d* L1248 >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d** - >> • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d1* L803 >> >> which indicates (to me) S247/Z73 or L573 or L1248 would be possibilities. >> >> Advice please. >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I show Driver M227 = GG+ and also L69+, but one always worries about strand issues with multiple labs now supplying results. **************************** Yes, we need to find out why they are placing M227 upstream from L69.1, but I'm not sure where to go to get that information. I assume that whoever is responsible for the Tree may has results from Full Genomes that we haven't yet seen. And they must have something for CTS8582, too, although I haven't been able to find anyone who is positive. Lindsey

Thanks Kenneth. I interpreted your diagram where it labels the branch as CTS7362= Z2539 that no additional benefit would accrue. Is that not the case? Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com On 20/01/14 12:34, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > What about CTS7362 test? > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: LornaMoa > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [yDNAhgI] I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider ordering > CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 > > Hi, > Surfacing to see where next please for the kit representing our clutch > of matching RUNCIMANs > > Kit 172347 is shown in the group > I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider ordering CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 > > And has so far tested > Z59+, Z60+, Z140-, Z2539- > > Looking at > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx (19 Dec) > I interpret that as Z60+ is divided by > Z140/Z141 > and CTS7362/Z2539 > > I assume that there is no point in testing Z141 if Z140 was negative. > > ISOGG (18 Jan) shows > • • • • • *I1a2a1* S337/Z60, S439/Z61, Z62 > • • • • • • *I1a2a1** - > • • • • • • *I1a2a1a* S440/Z140, Z141 > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a** - > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1* S1953/Z2535 > • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1** - > • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1a* L338 > • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1b* CTS10937/Z2538 > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a2* F2642/S2169 > • • • • • • *I1a2a1b* S247/Z73 > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b** - > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b1* L1302 > • • • • • • *I1a2a1c* L573 > • • • • • • *I1a2a1d* L1248 > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d** - > • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d1* L803 > > which indicates (to me) S247/Z73 or L573 or L1248 would be possibilities. > > Advice please. >

9 of the 18 Chromo2 snps are on Geno2 and are found in tests not to split phyloequivalence. So only 9 truly novel snps on Chromo2. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [yDNAhgI] SNPs phy/equiv to M253 in Chromo2 I have 5 I1 Chromo2 results and 6 I2.... Chromo2 results, with L22+ included among the 5 I1s. So I can extract the far upstream snps on Chromo2 phyloequivalent to M253+DF29. There are 20 snps on the chip derived for all 5 I1 and ancestral for all 6 I2..... DF29 and M307 are two of them. There are 18 novel ones, including: 4 CTS series snps 1 PAGES series 8 L series 5 S series That’s about one novel snp per 1000 years of ancestral branch line so produces a decent chance for one to be ancestral for a Z131+ or DF29-. While I do not recommend any known far upstream I1, like a DF29- and/or Z131+ , to order Chromo2 solely to check out these novel snps (your far downstream snps on Chromo2 would be more interesting to you), if you have already done Chromo2 and are DF29* or Z131+ but have not sent your raw data to me for checking these snps out, please do so. Or later today check out my tree file “Chromo2I1work” where I will have posted these 18 snps which you can check for yourself. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Surfacing to see where next please for the kit representing our clutch of matching RUNCIMANs Kit 172347 is shown in the group I1-Z60+ (Z58+, Z59+, Z60+, Z61+, Z62+) consider ordering CTS7362/Z2539, Z140 And has so far tested Z59+, Z60+, Z140-, Z2539- Looking at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree%20for%20I1%20Z60+.pptx (19 Dec) I interpret that as Z60+ is divided by Z140/Z141 and CTS7362/Z2539 I assume that there is no point in testing Z141 if Z140 was negative. ISOGG (18 Jan) shows • • • • • *I1a2a1* S337/Z60, S439/Z61, Z62 • • • • • • *I1a2a1** - • • • • • • *I1a2a1a* S440/Z140, Z141 • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a** - • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1* S1953/Z2535 • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1** - • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1a* L338 • • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a1b* CTS10937/Z2538 • • • • • • • *I1a2a1a2* F2642/S2169 • • • • • • *I1a2a1b* S247/Z73 • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b** - • • • • • • • *I1a2a1b1* L1302 • • • • • • *I1a2a1c* L573 • • • • • • *I1a2a1d* L1248 • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d** - • • • • • • • *I1a2a1d1* L803 which indicates (to me) S247/Z73 or L573 or L1248 would be possibilities. Advice please. -- Lorna Henderson http://LornaHen.com

I have 5 I1 Chromo2 results and 6 I2.... Chromo2 results, with L22+ included among the 5 I1s. So I can extract the far upstream snps on Chromo2 phyloequivalent to M253+DF29. There are 20 snps on the chip derived for all 5 I1 and ancestral for all 6 I2..... DF29 and M307 are two of them. There are 18 novel ones, including: 4 CTS series snps 1 PAGES series 8 L series 5 S series That’s about one novel snp per 1000 years of ancestral branch line so produces a decent chance for one to be ancestral for a Z131+ or DF29-. While I do not recommend any known far upstream I1, like a DF29- and/or Z131+ , to order Chromo2 solely to check out these novel snps (your far downstream snps on Chromo2 would be more interesting to you), if you have already done Chromo2 and are DF29* or Z131+ but have not sent your raw data to me for checking these snps out, please do so. Or later today check out my tree file “Chromo2I1work” where I will have posted these 18 snps which you can check for yourself. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

Does anyone know why M227 is parallel to L69.1, F3312, CTS8582, and L22 on the Y-Full Tree? http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1a/ What about CTS8582? Has anyone tested positive? Lindsey

> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also appears parallel to > CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably L1439+, but not necessarily, so at > least > one of them needs to test it: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So anything > downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer to prove it. > I see your conclusions, but your "database" showing the 37 individuals isn't > online. If the data aren't published, no one else can work with them. The > only > visible (published) data are at FTDNA and they show just five individuals > who > are DF29- and Z131-. > > [[ Most of those 37 are in the clades AS12123 and AS1212110. People can > look up in "I1 Modalities" to see if they are in those clades, or any other > clades for that matter. KN]] I'm not interested in the STR "modalities," I'm interested in the Kit numbers and SNP test results. Speaking in general, here - not directed at you, Ken - is there going to be any way these comprehensive SNP test data will be made available online, without depending entirely on personal sharing via email? Diana

You are being kind to authors of that tree. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Britton Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Position of M227 in Tree I show Driver M227 = GG+ and also L69+, but one always worries about strand issues with multiple labs now supplying results. **************************** Yes, we need to find out why they are placing M227 upstream from L69.1, but I'm not sure where to go to get that information. I assume that whoever is responsible for the Tree may has results from Full Genomes that we haven't yet seen. And they must have something for CTS8582, too, although I haven't been able to find anyone who is positive. Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> From: Gene Prescott > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but...... > > Kit #160188 (an AS1212) ordered L1439 this morning. I've indicated your pending test in the matrix: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#M253 Diana

Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Diana Gale Matthiesen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also appears parallel > to > CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably L1439+, but not necessarily, so at > least > one of them needs to test it: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So anything > downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer to prove it. [[With that attitude you will have to assume every dna sample is unknown for any snp not tested. You will have no tree beyond your explicit tested dna samples. For the next dna sample could always have a back mutation no matter how improbable and violate the tree structure, making your "... so at least one...." proviso useless. In fact your constructed tree does not even fulfill your attitude, because you do not test each sample for every upstream snp back to Adam. Who knows, any particular dna sample could have had one or more back mutations on upstream snps. There seems nothing productive about such an attitude. KN]]