If you view tonight’s update of the “Tree for L161” you’ll see a modification where branch line to Isles-C and Isles-D clades leaves the line to Isles-B4. This results from another L161 Chromo2 set of positives released, but still lacking the full raw data file. The snps derived for B4 but ancestral for Collier are now split between some derived for the new Isles-D2 result and some ancestral for the new Isles-D2 result. This could be modified a bit when the full raw data file can be examined. And we will then also have a list of new snps derived for the Isles-D2 line, but ancestral for others. No Chromo2 raw data has emerged for several weeks now, so we do with what we get. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

That's correct, and that's the point. One can't use 439=10 to signal member of a subgroup of the Z161* clade. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Wayne R. Roberts Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 6:51 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable According to the M223 Project results page the vast majority of members have 439=11 or 12. DYS439=10 in combination with some other markers like DYS392=13, seems to be a characteristic of this Z161* Vella-McMillan group. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <[email protected]>wrote: > Almost the whole population has 10 at 439. So that marker does not help > say whether Jesatko is member of a specific subgroup of the population. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne R. Roberts > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 6:09 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable > > Jesatko has the DYS439=10 > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Scott E. Stewart > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Jesatko has a high DYS 385a for Z161*, more like that of the L701 > > Sector, > > but 37 markers should tell: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne R. > > Roberts > > Sent: Friday, January 3, 2014 5:39 AM > > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable > > > > Waiting on 37 marker upgrade for Jesatko. What about the others in this > > Z161 cluster? Do they separate into three subgroups? > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Probably too early to say who Jesatko belongs with. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > > > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wayne R. Roberts > > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 10:16 PM > > > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable > > > > > > Do you see Vella, Membrana & Micallef as a Mediterranean subgroup, > > > then Jesatko, Perkins & Rogers as another subgroup and then Macmillan, > > > McMillan, Tanner, McPhee and Cameron as a Scottish subgroup? > > > > > > What age estimates do you have for this cluster's founder and subgroup > > > founders? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Vella peels off 1800 years b.p. from rest of the McMillan group in > > > > M223 Tree. > > > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Almost the whole population has 10 at 439. So that marker does not help say whether Jesatko is member of a specific subgroup of the population. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Wayne R. Roberts Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 6:09 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable Jesatko has the DYS439=10 On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Scott E. Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: > Jesatko has a high DYS 385a for Z161*, more like that of the L701 Sector, > but 37 markers should tell: > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne R. > Roberts > Sent: Friday, January 3, 2014 5:39 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable > > Waiting on 37 marker upgrade for Jesatko. What about the others in this > Z161 cluster? Do they separate into three subgroups? > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Probably too early to say who Jesatko belongs with. > > > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wayne R. Roberts > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 10:16 PM > > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Believable > > > > Do you see Vella, Membrana & Micallef as a Mediterranean subgroup, > > then Jesatko, Perkins & Rogers as another subgroup and then Macmillan, > > McMillan, Tanner, McPhee and Cameron as a Scottish subgroup? > > > > What age estimates do you have for this cluster's founder and subgroup > > founders? > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Vella peels off 1800 years b.p. from rest of the McMillan group in > > > M223 Tree. > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > ------------------------------- 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 assumed that the Big Y which is going to test for 25,000 known SNPs will test for PF3514 again, so perhaps I will get a less anomalous result in the Big Y. Matthew Simonds > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:38:05 -0700 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > What would be the connection between your BigY order and a possible > malfunction or correction in the Geno2 product? They are entirely different > products. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Simonds > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 10:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > > I ordered the Big Y, so if this is just a recent malfunction of the reading > devices, then perhaps the error will be corrected if that is what it is. > > Matthew Simonds > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:19:08 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > > > There is another interpretation of the PF3514 = AA which are lightly > > sprinkled around. It could very well be that recently the lab tinkered > > with > > the reading devices or some other aspect of the Geno2 chip. The AA seem > > to > > have come mainly from quite recent results sent out to customers. So we > > may > > expect from now on Geno2 results in I1 and maybe beyond will most all be > > AA? > > On the other hand, I hope we don't see that many more Geno2 results; it > > has > > by now become a real long shot route to new snp discovery. > > > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthew Simonds > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 9:59 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > > > In going over my Geno 2.0 results, I noticed that I'm not PF3514+ like > > most > > other people in the yDNA Haplogroup I: Sublclade I1 group who have Geno > > 2.0 > > results. The raw data file says that I'm AA at that location. I was > > wondering about this, so thought I would ask. > > > > Matthew Simonds > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 ordered the Big Y, so if this is just a recent malfunction of the reading devices, then perhaps the error will be corrected if that is what it is. Matthew Simonds > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:19:08 -0700 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > There is another interpretation of the PF3514 = AA which are lightly > sprinkled around. It could very well be that recently the lab tinkered with > the reading devices or some other aspect of the Geno2 chip. The AA seem to > have come mainly from quite recent results sent out to customers. So we may > expect from now on Geno2 results in I1 and maybe beyond will most all be AA? > On the other hand, I hope we don't see that many more Geno2 results; it has > by now become a real long shot route to new snp discovery. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Simonds > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 9:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > In going over my Geno 2.0 results, I noticed that I'm not PF3514+ like most > other people in the yDNA Haplogroup I: Sublclade I1 group who have Geno 2.0 > results. The raw data file says that I'm AA at that location. I was > wondering about this, so thought I would ask. > > Matthew Simonds > > ------------------------------- > 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

You can add me to your small list. I'm L22+ P109+ with kit number 310372. Matthew Simonds > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:06:08 -0700 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > There is something erratic about the behavior of PF3514. I show 5 I1 plus > one I2 with AA, while many dozens of others are all AG. But those 5 > anomalies in I1 are from very different parts of the I1 tree; their results > can not be due to an inherited common mutation in their ancestral lines. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Simonds > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 9:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > In going over my Geno 2.0 results, I noticed that I'm not PF3514+ like most > other people in the yDNA Haplogroup I: Sublclade I1 group who have Geno 2.0 > results. The raw data file says that I'm AA at that location. I was > wondering about this, so thought I would ask. > > Matthew Simonds > > ------------------------------- > 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

In going over my Geno 2.0 results, I noticed that I'm not PF3514+ like most other people in the yDNA Haplogroup I: Sublclade I1 group who have Geno 2.0 results. The raw data file says that I'm AA at that location. I was wondering about this, so thought I would ask. Matthew Simonds

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: 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" <[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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And all 6 Chromo2 raw data files I have for customers show L380 = AA Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion I checked the Geno2 raw data I have from about 100 customers in haplogroup I along with a couple controls, a R1b..... customer and a IJK customer. Everyone shows AA. Maybe that site is broken on the Geno2 chip, but it is certainly showing a reliable result. What FTDNA tests are getting could be a different story? Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion In case some of you have forgotten, L380 is an unreliable SNP. If I remember correct, it showed up in I1 at about the same time as it showed up in I2. That was in 2011. Some time before that, in 2010 i think it was, it showed up somewhere in haplogroup R1b. Regards, H. Styri > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [[email protected]] > Sent: 2014-01-03 21:22:56 CET > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion > > I'm afraid I wasn't talking about it missing from a Geno 2.0 conversion, I > said > it was missing from the ISOGG Hg I Haplotree page. > > L380+ was found on a WTY and, so far, it appears to be Private for my > RASEY > #69631. It's negative for my RAZEE #70816: > > #70816 RAZEE I2-L801+ > Z78+ > L1198+ [L380-] > > #69631 RASEY I2-L801+ > L380+ [Z78-] > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JB MCCRUMMEN > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:53 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" <[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 > > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I- > > [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 checked the Geno2 raw data I have from about 100 customers in haplogroup I along with a couple controls, a R1b..... customer and a IJK customer. Everyone shows AA. Maybe that site is broken on the Geno2 chip, but it is certainly showing a reliable result. What FTDNA tests are getting could be a different story? Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion In case some of you have forgotten, L380 is an unreliable SNP. If I remember correct, it showed up in I1 at about the same time as it showed up in I2. That was in 2011. Some time before that, in 2010 i think it was, it showed up somewhere in haplogroup R1b. Regards, H. Styri > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [[email protected]] > Sent: 2014-01-03 21:22:56 CET > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion > > I'm afraid I wasn't talking about it missing from a Geno 2.0 conversion, I > said > it was missing from the ISOGG Hg I Haplotree page. > > L380+ was found on a WTY and, so far, it appears to be Private for my > RASEY > #69631. It's negative for my RAZEE #70816: > > #70816 RAZEE I2-L801+ > Z78+ > L1198+ [L380-] > > #69631 RASEY I2-L801+ > L380+ [Z78-] > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JB MCCRUMMEN > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:53 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" <[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 > > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I- > > [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

Matthew, I think that is most likely to be the case for I1 and I2 people. At least I don't think the Geno 2.0 chip is capable of reading C at this location. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Simonds <[email protected]>wrote: > > > My Geno 2.0 result for PF3514 also shows > > AG, but this probably means nothing since my C would not have been > > detectable by the Geno 2.0 chip if it is looking for A or G. I think it > is > > possible that PF3514 was erroneously reported by Paolo Francalacci as A > to > > G instead of A to C, especially since both PF3514 and Y1850 (FGC2408) are > > shown by the ISOGG Y Browser to be located at the IJ level in the Y tree. > > > > So does this mean that all the Geno 2.0 results for PF3514+ might be > mistaken and are reading AG when they should be reading CC and that the few > anomalous AA results for I1 people are also mistaken and should be reading > CC in that location? > > Matthew Simonds > > > > > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:13:11 -0600 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] PF3514 > > > > My Full Genomes result also shows me to be FGC2408+; i.e, A to C at > > location 5578819 of the Y. All 76 of my reads at this location show C, so > > the result seems quite reliable. My Geno 2.0 result for PF3514 also shows > > AG, but this probably means nothing since my C would not have been > > detectable by the Geno 2.0 chip if it is looking for A or G. I think it > is > > possible that PF3514 was erroneously reported by Paolo Francalacci as A > to > > G instead of A to C, especially since both PF3514 and Y1850 (FGC2408) are > > shown by the ISOGG Y Browser to be located at the IJ level in the Y tree. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:35 AM, John O'Grady <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > There are two SNPs at the same position. PF3514 is A to G. Y1850 is A > to C. > > > Geno 2.0 shows me as AG. Full Genomes shows me as CC, and calls the SNP > > > FGC2408, which is the same as Y1850. > > > Anyone who has AG in Geno 2.0 is probably actually CC and > Y1850/FGC2408. > > > John O'Grady > > > > > > > > > > > There is something erratic about the behavior of PF3514. I show 5 I1 > > > plus > > > > one I2 with AA, while many dozens of others are all AG. But those 5 > > > > anomalies in I1 are from very different parts of the I1 tree; their > > > results > > > > can not be due to an inherited common mutation in their ancestral > lines. > > > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 >

What you say below BY ITSELF does not make L380 unreliable; simply having mutated in the known Tree at least twice --- which is no big deal. I will check all Geno2 results from haplogroup I and get back to you shortly. I think I did so for I1 earlier today and it was monolithic whatever it was in the raw data. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion In case some of you have forgotten, L380 is an unreliable SNP. If I remember correct, it showed up in I1 at about the same time as it showed up in I2. That was in 2011. Some time before that, in 2010 i think it was, it showed up somewhere in haplogroup R1b. Regards, H. Styri > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [[email protected]] > Sent: 2014-01-03 21:22:56 CET > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion > > I'm afraid I wasn't talking about it missing from a Geno 2.0 conversion, I > said > it was missing from the ISOGG Hg I Haplotree page. > > L380+ was found on a WTY and, so far, it appears to be Private for my > RASEY > #69631. It's negative for my RAZEE #70816: > > #70816 RAZEE I2-L801+ > Z78+ > L1198+ [L380-] > > #69631 RASEY I2-L801+ > L380+ [Z78-] > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JB MCCRUMMEN > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:53 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" <[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 > > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I- > > [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

Ken Just to confirm that GA Goal, GB Goal BobDNA Projects I2*, ISOGG new I2b, I2c HG & Tyler Surname and ISOGG YTree

Ken Just to confirm that GA Goal, GB Goal, GA and GB are in generations? BobDNA Projects I2*, ISOGG new I2b, I2c HG & Tyler Surname and ISOGG YTree

I misspoke. L380+ was found on my RASEY's WTY, but it was not a new SNP at the time. The new SNP found on his WTY was L801. > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Missing GENO 2.0 Results in FTDNA Conversion > > I'm afraid I wasn't talking about it missing from a Geno 2.0 conversion, I > said > it was missing from the ISOGG Hg I Haplotree page. > > L380+ was found on a WTY and, so far, it appears to be Private for my RASEY > #69631. It's negative for my RAZEE #70816: > > #70816 RAZEE I2-L801+ > Z78+ > L1198+ [L380-] > > #69631 RASEY I2-L801+ > L380+ [Z78-] > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JB MCCRUMMEN > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:53 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" <[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 > >

I'm afraid I wasn't talking about it missing from a Geno 2.0 conversion, I said it was missing from the ISOGG Hg I Haplotree page. L380+ was found on a WTY and, so far, it appears to be Private for my RASEY #69631. It's negative for my RAZEE #70816: #70816 RAZEE I2-L801+ > Z78+ > L1198+ [L380-] #69631 RASEY I2-L801+ > L380+ [Z78-] http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JB MCCRUMMEN > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 2:53 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" <[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 Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message

Do you see Vella, Membrana & Micallef as a Mediterranean subgroup, then Jesatko, Perkins & Rogers as another subgroup and then Macmillan, McMillan, Tanner, McPhee and Cameron as a Scottish subgroup? What age estimates do you have for this cluster's founder and subgroup founders? On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <[email protected]>wrote: > Vella peels off 1800 years b.p. from rest of the McMillan group in M223 > Tree. > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > >

My Full Genomes result also shows me to be FGC2408+; i.e, A to C at location 5578819 of the Y. All 76 of my reads at this location show C, so the result seems quite reliable. My Geno 2.0 result for PF3514 also shows AG, but this probably means nothing since my C would not have been detectable by the Geno 2.0 chip if it is looking for A or G. I think it is possible that PF3514 was erroneously reported by Paolo Francalacci as A to G instead of A to C, especially since both PF3514 and Y1850 (FGC2408) are shown by the ISOGG Y Browser to be located at the IJ level in the Y tree. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:35 AM, John O'Grady <[email protected]>wrote: > There are two SNPs at the same position. PF3514 is A to G. Y1850 is A to C. > Geno 2.0 shows me as AG. Full Genomes shows me as CC, and calls the SNP > FGC2408, which is the same as Y1850. > Anyone who has AG in Geno 2.0 is probably actually CC and Y1850/FGC2408. > John O'Grady > > > > > There is something erratic about the behavior of PF3514. I show 5 I1 > plus > > one I2 with AA, while many dozens of others are all AG. But those 5 > > anomalies in I1 are from very different parts of the I1 tree; their > results > > can not be due to an inherited common mutation in their ancestral lines. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

It's true that Hood doesn't have many of the Isles-A marker values. I had moved him around a few times over the years and I'm happy to know that he is L1498+ and that he matches your Isles-B2a. let me know if there are any other people incorrectly categorized (I know I haven't created sections for all your Isles-B groups yet). But I think the news about Dover is exciting and I hope we can find some others like him. Bernie

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" <[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 -----------------