There are currently only two people in the FTDNA I1 Project that have the L211+ mutation (which is I1e in ISOGG, and listed as a "private" SNP). A real surprise is that one of those L211+ people has now tested to be Z138+. And given that there are already people that are L211-,Z138+ and L211-,Z138-, it follows that L211 must be downstream of Z138. So the I1e (L211+) in ISOGG would need to be shifted downstream of I1f2 (Z138+) if the results are confirmed. Terry

Please watch your language on the list and please refrain from nastiness. If I continue to read messages of a questionable nature, I will place the list on emergency moderation. All messages will then need to be approved. I'd rather not have to do this, as it is time consuming and creates a delay in the discussion. http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html http://www.studygs.net/netiquette.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette -- Aaron, List Admin

I want to thank the five people who seem to be generic, are either Z58-, Z63-, and Z131- or Z58- and Z63-, and who have ordered DF29 tests. With the new upstream snp DF29 added to FTDNA catalog, one big goal is to see if there is I1 life before DF29. Or does DF29 turn out phyloequivalent to M253 now that Z131 is effectively out of the picture for the indefinite future. On this same issue, it is important that all established clades found Z58- Z63- and Z131- have a representative testing DF29. I think all are covered except maybe the robust AS4 clade and the M227+ subhaplogroup? Can someone from these groups do the DF29 test? Or maybe I have missed some orders which fall outside of the Projects I can monitor? Ken

I can arrange to have one of the Merediths who is AS4 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~merideth/surnameproject.htm (see the yellow section) do DF29--does it make any difference which one it should be? Sharon Haggerty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> To: <y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:08 PM Subject: [yDNAhgI] Does I1xL22 have life before DF29? >I want to thank the five people who seem to be generic, are either Z58-, >Z63-, and Z131- or Z58- and Z63-, and who have ordered DF29 tests. > > With the new upstream snp DF29 added to FTDNA catalog, one big goal is to > see if there is I1 life before DF29. Or does DF29 turn out > phyloequivalent to M253 now that Z131 is effectively out of the picture > for the indefinite future. > > On this same issue, it is important that all established clades found Z58- > Z63- and Z131- have a representative testing DF29. I think all are > covered except maybe the robust AS4 clade and the M227+ subhaplogroup? > > Can someone from these groups do the DF29 test? Or maybe I have missed > some orders which fall outside of the Projects I can monitor? > > Ken > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Kit # 38798 joined the I1 project today for the AS7E subgroup. He has just been confirmed negative for Z131, matching St. Clair. I have two volunteers for DF29 and won't encourage more unless we get contradictory results or have reason to believe that DF29 is unpredictable within well-defined subgroups. I'm still working on WTY--but without much success so far and may have to try a different approach. Lindsey

Thanks Obed. How long ago was it ? On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Obed W Odom <owodom@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > Tony, I am Z138+/Z139+ and have done 2 versions of WTY (but maybe not > the very latest version), and the only new SNP found was L186/L187, > which turned out to be shared by all known I-M253 people. > > On 3/11/2012 1:27 PM, Tony Bardy wrote: > > Julie do you know if there is any z138+,z139+ doing the WTY ? > > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Julie Frame Falk<jdf4072@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Dear List > >> > >> For those who tested positive for Z63, or Z58 and/or one of its > downstream > >> SNPs and are not members of the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project at FTDNA, > you > >> may find the Project’s Surname SNP Tree a useful guide if you are > trying to > >> decide which downstream SNP to test next. This chart is updated > regularly, > >> but I thought I would share a link to the latest version because there > have > >> been some positive results for Z73 and Z382. I will leave this file in > my > >> Dropbox account for a short period of time in case anyone wishes to > >> download a copy: > >> > >> Surname SNP Tree link (ver. 11 Mar 2012): http://db.tt/97FNiNm1 > >> > >> > >> SNP Distribution Maps Links: > >> > >> Z58+ Map: http://g.co/maps/gd879 > >> > >> Z63+ Map: http://g.co/maps/ahnxj > >> > >> > >> > >> I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project website: http://bit.ly/I1Z58andI1Z63 > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> Julie Frame Falk > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- ANTONIO BARDY FLORIDA CONNEXION PROPERTIES 7411 International Drive Orlando, FL 32819 Tel: 407-535-3639 Fax: 321-251-5599 E-mail: BUYHOMEINFLORIDA@GMAIL.COM Brasil SP: (11)3958-4311 Brasil RJ : (21)3958-1329

Julie do you know if there is any z138+,z139+ doing the WTY ? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Julie Frame Falk <jdf4072@gmail.com>wrote: > Dear List > > For those who tested positive for Z63, or Z58 and/or one of its downstream > SNPs and are not members of the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project at FTDNA, you > may find the Project’s Surname SNP Tree a useful guide if you are trying to > decide which downstream SNP to test next. This chart is updated regularly, > but I thought I would share a link to the latest version because there have > been some positive results for Z73 and Z382. I will leave this file in my > Dropbox account for a short period of time in case anyone wishes to > download a copy: > > Surname SNP Tree link (ver. 11 Mar 2012): http://db.tt/97FNiNm1 > > > SNP Distribution Maps Links: > > Z58+ Map: http://g.co/maps/gd879 > > Z63+ Map: http://g.co/maps/ahnxj > > > > I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project website: http://bit.ly/I1Z58andI1Z63 > > > > Kind regards > > Julie Frame Falk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear List For those who tested positive for Z63, or Z58 and/or one of its downstream SNPs and are not members of the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project at FTDNA, you may find the Project’s Surname SNP Tree a useful guide if you are trying to decide which downstream SNP to test next. This chart is updated regularly, but I thought I would share a link to the latest version because there have been some positive results for Z73 and Z382. I will leave this file in my Dropbox account for a short period of time in case anyone wishes to download a copy: Surname SNP Tree link (ver. 11 Mar 2012): http://db.tt/97FNiNm1 SNP Distribution Maps Links: Z58+ Map: http://g.co/maps/gd879 Z63+ Map: http://g.co/maps/ahnxj I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project website: http://bit.ly/I1Z58andI1Z63 Kind regards Julie Frame Falk

My later WTY results were received in July 2011, and I think I ordered the test around April or May, 2011. As I recall, this second test covered around 200,000 bases, about double what the first WTY covered. Obed On 3/11/2012 1:44 PM, Tony Bardy wrote: > Thanks Obed. How long ago was it ? > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Obed W Odom<owodom@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > >> Tony, I am Z138+/Z139+ and have done 2 versions of WTY (but maybe not >> the very latest version), and the only new SNP found was L186/L187, >> which turned out to be shared by all known I-M253 people. >> >>

Tony, I am Z138+/Z139+ and have done 2 versions of WTY (but maybe not the very latest version), and the only new SNP found was L186/L187, which turned out to be shared by all known I-M253 people. On 3/11/2012 1:27 PM, Tony Bardy wrote: > Julie do you know if there is any z138+,z139+ doing the WTY ? > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Julie Frame Falk<jdf4072@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Dear List >> >> For those who tested positive for Z63, or Z58 and/or one of its downstream >> SNPs and are not members of the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project at FTDNA, you >> may find the Project’s Surname SNP Tree a useful guide if you are trying to >> decide which downstream SNP to test next. This chart is updated regularly, >> but I thought I would share a link to the latest version because there have >> been some positive results for Z73 and Z382. I will leave this file in my >> Dropbox account for a short period of time in case anyone wishes to >> download a copy: >> >> Surname SNP Tree link (ver. 11 Mar 2012): http://db.tt/97FNiNm1 >> >> >> SNP Distribution Maps Links: >> >> Z58+ Map: http://g.co/maps/gd879 >> >> Z63+ Map: http://g.co/maps/ahnxj >> >> >> >> I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project website: http://bit.ly/I1Z58andI1Z63 >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Julie Frame Falk >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

You seem constitutionally unable or unwilling to recognize that branch lines defined by SNPs are indeed clades. So I am in the clade defined by Z138/Z139, as I think any evolutionary biologist would agree. If you want to consider me some sort of generic fuzz, I guess that's your prerogative. On 3/11/2012 8:55 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > Over the past 7 or so years I1xL22 was found to consist of a number of very robust clades. The numbering of these clades approximately runs in order of there time of discovery and size (large population clades are most often easier to find than small ones, and at least they better catch one’s attention, hence were found earliest). The relatively recent addition of the Z series of snps in I1xL22 turns out to well separate these onto separate branches of the y tree, revealing the time ordering of their separation nodes. Here’s the snp tagging for these main clades. > > AS1: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 > AS2: Z58 to Z138/Z139 > AS3: Z58 to Z59 to Z382 > AS4: ancestral for all Z series snps > AS5: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 > AS6: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 (AS5 and AS6 are part of a larger complex with indicated snp tags) > AS7e: ancestral for all Z series snps > AS8: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 (same as AS1) > AS9: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 (part of larger complex along with AS16) > AS10: Z58 to Z138/Z139 > T2: Z63 > P: ancestral for all Z series snps > ML: ancestral for all Z series snps > > See “tree for I1” pdf file at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net for a partially time quantified tree for I1 which visualizes the above table. > > There is a continuous spectrum of smaller and smaller population clusters found, most with no assigned nicknames. > > The new snps most of the time do not split the historically discovered clades; they tag whole tags instead. I consider that an interesting feature of the tree, but it probably has a probability-based explanation. > > But I1xL22 still consists of 30 to 40 percent haplotypes which could not be assigned to a clade. These I1-ASgeneric haplotypes are showing up on most all the branch lines established by the new snps. The extreme downstream L338+ category seems an interesting exception. I know of no L338+ haplotype which most folks would have labeled outside of or an extreme outlier of AS1 or AS8. I view the large population of generics as sort of like peach fuzz (or fiber fuzz on old time sailors’ manila ropes) on the main branches of the y tree which lead to the higher population clades. > > The open question is whether the Z snp tagging of the I1-ASgeneric haplotypes will eventually lead to detecting commonalities in their haplotypes as well? I think this will happen to some extent when the haplotypes are expanded to 111 markers as well. The emergence of the tagged clade I1-ESc-13 is a case in point. Some similarities of a bunch of haplotypes were evident for a good number of years based on 67 markers, and my personal haplotype was in that bunch, so it had received my own excessive attention. But through those years I could not justify considering them a clade based on that evidence alone because of certain weaknesses of the similarities --- until a number of the haplotypes in that bunch expanded to 111 markers. Then the picture of descent from a slightly recent common ancestor became pretty clear. The Z series snp testing on the bunch was then the tasty chocolate frosting on the cake --- they are all turning out on a low-population branch of the haplog! roup tree created by the Z snps --- that branch line which also leads to AS2 in the above table. The combination of 111 markers and the Z snps will now allow establishing the outer limits of this Scot-centered clade. > > Ken > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[[ Kindly go to hell. Where did that absurd charge come from? Haplogroups are specific (special to some but not all) kinds of clades in terms of their identification method; I have probably stated that more times through the years than either of our ages. So kindly keep your technical objections separate from your assertions about personalities, especially when the latter require your powers of mind reading which may not work too well? Yes, you are in the haplogroup (clade) tagged by Z138/Z139. But there are clades found over the past 7 years in I1xL22 before the snps were around and other alternative identifications were required, among them AS2 identified probably in early 2005 and probably representing a large fraction of Z138/Z139 clade. And there continue to be clades tagged by various types of observations. Every node in the y tree represents a distinct clade, technically or formally speaking. If you don't want to envision the tree downstream of Z138/Z139 as consisting of branch lines here and there leading to very demographically robust clades, and as well a large number of demographically modest branches (the fuzz), I guess that's your prerogative. KN ]] -----Original Message----- From: Obed W Odom Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:47 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Z snps well split I1xL22 major clades You seem constitutionally unable or unwilling to recognize that branch lines defined by SNPs are indeed clades. So I am in the clade defined by Z138/Z139, as I think any evolutionary biologist would agree. If you want to consider me some sort of generic fuzz, I guess that's your prerogative.

Thank you, Ken. You have given us a detailed guide to follow through our I1 projects. John M Rhodes Sent from my iPhone On Mar 11, 2012, at 9:55 AM, "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Over the past 7 or so years I1xL22 was found to consist of a number of very robust clades. The numbering of these clades approximately runs in order of there time of discovery and size (large population clades are most often easier to find than small ones, and at least they better catch one’s attention, hence were found earliest). The relatively recent addition of the Z series of snps in I1xL22 turns out to well separate these onto separate branches of the y tree, revealing the time ordering of their separation nodes. Here’s the snp tagging for these main clades. > > AS1: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 > AS2: Z58 to Z138/Z139 > AS3: Z58 to Z59 to Z382 > AS4: ancestral for all Z series snps > AS5: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 > AS6: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 (AS5 and AS6 are part of a larger complex with indicated snp tags) > AS7e: ancestral for all Z series snps > AS8: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 (same as AS1) > AS9: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 (part of larger complex along with AS16) > AS10: Z58 to Z138/Z139 > T2: Z63 > P: ancestral for all Z series snps > ML: ancestral for all Z series snps > > See “tree for I1” pdf file at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net for a partially time quantified tree for I1 which visualizes the above table. > > There is a continuous spectrum of smaller and smaller population clusters found, most with no assigned nicknames. > > The new snps most of the time do not split the historically discovered clades; they tag whole tags instead. I consider that an interesting feature of the tree, but it probably has a probability-based explanation. > > But I1xL22 still consists of 30 to 40 percent haplotypes which could not be assigned to a clade. These I1-ASgeneric haplotypes are showing up on most all the branch lines established by the new snps. The extreme downstream L338+ category seems an interesting exception. I know of no L338+ haplotype which most folks would have labeled outside of or an extreme outlier of AS1 or AS8. I view the large population of generics as sort of like peach fuzz (or fiber fuzz on old time sailors’ manila ropes) on the main branches of the y tree which lead to the higher population clades. > > The open question is whether the Z snp tagging of the I1-ASgeneric haplotypes will eventually lead to detecting commonalities in their haplotypes as well? I think this will happen to some extent when the haplotypes are expanded to 111 markers as well. The emergence of the tagged clade I1-ESc-13 is a case in point. Some similarities of a bunch of haplotypes were evident for a good number of years based on 67 markers, and my personal haplotype was in that bunch, so it had received my own excessive attention. But through those years I could not justify considering them a clade based on that evidence alone because of certain weaknesses of the similarities --- until a number of the haplotypes in that bunch expanded to 111 markers. Then the picture of descent from a slightly recent common ancestor became pretty clear. The Z series snp testing on the bunch was then the tasty chocolate frosting on the cake --- they are all turning out on a low-population branch of the haplog! roup tree created by the Z snps --- that branch line which also leads to AS2 in the above table. The combination of 111 markers and the Z snps will now allow establishing the outer limits of this Scot-centered clade. > > Ken > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ken, If not the AS4 and AS7E subclades, we could say that the prefix AS is an equivalent of Z58+. Best, Marek Skarbek Kozietulski -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:56 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] Z snps well split I1xL22 major clades Over the past 7 or so years I1xL22 was found to consist of a number of very robust clades. The numbering of these clades approximately runs in order of there time of discovery and size (large population clades are most often easier to find than small ones, and at least they better catch one’s attention, hence were found earliest). The relatively recent addition of the Z series of snps in I1xL22 turns out to well separate these onto separate branches of the y tree, revealing the time ordering of their separation nodes. Here’s the snp tagging for these main clades. AS1: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 AS2: Z58 to Z138/Z139 AS3: Z58 to Z59 to Z382 AS4: ancestral for all Z series snps AS5: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 AS6: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 (AS5 and AS6 are part of a larger complex with indicated snp tags) AS7e: ancestral for all Z series snps AS8: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 (same as AS1) AS9: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 (part of larger complex along with AS16) AS10: Z58 to Z138/Z139 T2: Z63 P: ancestral for all Z series snps ML: ancestral for all Z series snps See “tree for I1” pdf file at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net for a partially time quantified tree for I1 which visualizes the above table. There is a continuous spectrum of smaller and smaller population clusters found, most with no assigned nicknames. The new snps most of the time do not split the historically discovered clades; they tag whole tags instead. I consider that an interesting feature of the tree, but it probably has a probability-based explanation. But I1xL22 still consists of 30 to 40 percent haplotypes which could not be assigned to a clade. These I1-ASgeneric haplotypes are showing up on most all the branch lines established by the new snps. The extreme downstream L338+ category seems an interesting exception. I know of no L338+ haplotype which most folks would have labeled outside of or an extreme outlier of AS1 or AS8. I view the large population of generics as sort of like peach fuzz (or fiber fuzz on old time sailors’ manila ropes) on the main branches of the y tree which lead to the higher population clades. The open question is whether the Z snp tagging of the I1-ASgeneric haplotypes will eventually lead to detecting commonalities in their haplotypes as well? I think this will happen to some extent when the haplotypes are expanded to 111 markers as well. The emergence of the tagged clade I1-ESc-13 is a case in point. Some similarities of a bunch of haplotypes were evident for a good number of years based on 67 markers, and my personal haplotype was in that bunch, so it had received my own excessive attention. But through those years I could not justify considering them a clade based on that evidence alone because of certain weaknesses of the similarities --- until a number of the haplotypes in that bunch expanded to 111 markers. Then the picture of descent from a slightly recent common ancestor became pretty clear. The Z series snp testing on the bunch was then the tasty chocolate frosting on the cake --- they are all turning out on a low-population branch of the haplogro! up tree created by the Z snps --- that branch line which also leads to AS2 in the above table. The combination of 111 markers and the Z snps will now allow establishing the outer limits of this Scot-centered clade. Ken ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4863 - Release Date: 03/10/12

Over the past 7 or so years I1xL22 was found to consist of a number of very robust clades. The numbering of these clades approximately runs in order of there time of discovery and size (large population clades are most often easier to find than small ones, and at least they better catch one’s attention, hence were found earliest). The relatively recent addition of the Z series of snps in I1xL22 turns out to well separate these onto separate branches of the y tree, revealing the time ordering of their separation nodes. Here’s the snp tagging for these main clades. AS1: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 AS2: Z58 to Z138/Z139 AS3: Z58 to Z59 to Z382 AS4: ancestral for all Z series snps AS5: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 AS6: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 (AS5 and AS6 are part of a larger complex with indicated snp tags) AS7e: ancestral for all Z series snps AS8: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 to Z140 to L338 (same as AS1) AS9: Z58 to Z59 to Z60 (part of larger complex along with AS16) AS10: Z58 to Z138/Z139 T2: Z63 P: ancestral for all Z series snps ML: ancestral for all Z series snps See “tree for I1” pdf file at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net for a partially time quantified tree for I1 which visualizes the above table. There is a continuous spectrum of smaller and smaller population clusters found, most with no assigned nicknames. The new snps most of the time do not split the historically discovered clades; they tag whole tags instead. I consider that an interesting feature of the tree, but it probably has a probability-based explanation. But I1xL22 still consists of 30 to 40 percent haplotypes which could not be assigned to a clade. These I1-ASgeneric haplotypes are showing up on most all the branch lines established by the new snps. The extreme downstream L338+ category seems an interesting exception. I know of no L338+ haplotype which most folks would have labeled outside of or an extreme outlier of AS1 or AS8. I view the large population of generics as sort of like peach fuzz (or fiber fuzz on old time sailors’ manila ropes) on the main branches of the y tree which lead to the higher population clades. The open question is whether the Z snp tagging of the I1-ASgeneric haplotypes will eventually lead to detecting commonalities in their haplotypes as well? I think this will happen to some extent when the haplotypes are expanded to 111 markers as well. The emergence of the tagged clade I1-ESc-13 is a case in point. Some similarities of a bunch of haplotypes were evident for a good number of years based on 67 markers, and my personal haplotype was in that bunch, so it had received my own excessive attention. But through those years I could not justify considering them a clade based on that evidence alone because of certain weaknesses of the similarities --- until a number of the haplotypes in that bunch expanded to 111 markers. Then the picture of descent from a slightly recent common ancestor became pretty clear. The Z series snp testing on the bunch was then the tasty chocolate frosting on the cake --- they are all turning out on a low-population branch of the haplogroup tree created by the Z snps --- that branch line which also leads to AS2 in the above table. The combination of 111 markers and the Z snps will now allow establishing the outer limits of this Scot-centered clade. Ken

Then the branching off in Terry's tree has to be more than a span of 400 years to have a connection between Poland and Portugual and a connection with the Goths or Suevis...one "father" up there are connections to English and Danish...unless these were parallel mutations which then appear to be related?   I was pointing out earlier that BA* Finland looks to me to be Goth spreading and landing to Northern Spain.   Just me, but logically I would think that these tribes would have had a distinct marker since they were in isolation of each other for so long...or were they isolated?   I would disagree on another comment, settlements occured in NW Spain and in the war torn borders in turn for Christian baptism and loyalty...unless this occured once and the story was widely dispersed as propaganda. ________________________________ From: Marek Skarbek Kozietulski <msskarbek@gmail.com> To: familienarchiv@genealogie-fritsche.de; y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Suebo-Alemannic population and hg I1 in central Europe (was: Suebi in Galicia and Portugal) Jürgen, Generally, I agree with the thesis that Suebi were dominated genetically by the I1. I am not sure which wave of Suebi attacking Europe from North between times of Caesar and 570 AC was the most numerous, and how large areas were embraced by them. On my map http://medievalgenealogy.republika.pl/normans_ce_distri_map.htm I see a very high density of I1 along the Rhine valley up to Switzerland. I would link this density with the Suebi expansion. Other areas which you have mentioned as connected to Suebi are not so I1 intense. North-Eastern Thuringia and Upper Saxony, where you are from, have increased presence of I1, but this could be also linked to the Saxon conquest of Elb-Slavs (even to the well known ethnical cleansings performed by Markgraf Geron in the Xth century). All these waves of Scandinavian tribes were driven by periodic famines, and probably the attacks of Suebi, Goths, Vandals were caused by the same famines (were synchronic). Suebi started their attacks from the area of today Denmark and South-Western part of Scania, ie. areas where even today I1 has a high share. So it is logical that I1 was probably well represented among them. Goths started more in the North-Eastern part of Scania and in Gotland, where R1b has a high share. So I would expect them to be carriers more of R1b than I1. The relatively high share of R1b and low of I1 in Poland, which was on the route of Goths, can probably be linked to Goths. It is known, that Goths have spent several generations on the territories of the today Poland. Probably, certain part of moving Goth remained on the territory of today Poland. There are three regions in Poland where population is partly linked ethnically to Goth (the most significant is Kociewie South of Gdansk/Danzig, this names means something like Goths-Land). Nevertheless, I think that also among Goths could be a certain share of I1, which has to be considered. The I1 case mentioned by Aaron Casillas (Norway-Poland-Portugal) is probably a good example. Also the Gottschee region of Slovenia, where I1 has an increased share, gives something to think about. Best, Marek -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dnag-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Familienarchiv Fritsche + Saldarriaga Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:51 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] Suebo-Alemannic population and hg I1 in central Europe (was: Suebi in Galicia and Portugal) <<  This could be linked to Suebi, as the share of I1 is significantly increased in the area of the Suebi expansion in Julius Caesar times - along the Rhine valley up to Switzerland.>> Marek, "the area of the Suebi expansion in Julius Caesar times" you refer to, regarding an early and by population numerously not that important settlement is the same area the Suebo-Alemannic final and large settlement took place about 300 years later and the area where this Suebian population still is living today. The Alemannic "tribes" always were part of the geographicly between lower river Elbe and what is Slovakia currently largely distributed and numerous Suebian federation, with tribes like the Semnoni, Warni, Langobardi, Hermunduri, Quadi, Marcomanni, and some more tribes. All of them belonged to the Elbe Germanics, as a synonym to the Suebi and their federation. "Alemanni" means "all men", not a tribe but rather large groups of Suebian warriors from different Suebian tribes in order to warfare against the Roman empire. As of about the year 230 the Alemannic storm ran permanently and widely against the borders (the Roman "limes") of the Roman Empire in current central, southern and southwestern Germany. The Romans retreated and the Suebo-Alemannic tribes settled and expanded finally largely between the river Neckar and upstream along river Rhine, in the Alsace (an area name which means "Seats of the Alemans"), and later in Switzerland and in western Austria. So rather this later, large and final settling is the reason why you can find a significant percentage of hg I1 in these areas. And besides this, it also can mean why I myself bear the I1 hg for possibly being descendant of Suebian ancestors, settling in the Thuringian area - at least being descendant from the I1 founder in northern Germany and the lower Elbe basin especially ca. 8000 years ago, thousands of years before Germanic tribes found their Pre-Germanic origin by melting Scandinavian and northern German Old Europeans and immigrating Indoeuropeans. <<  So Suebi could have a significant share of I1.>> Possibly yes, see above. Best regards. Jürgen -------- Original Message  -------- Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Suebi in Galicia and Portugal (was: New I1-Iber clade in    I1xL22) From: Marek Skarbek Kozietulski <msskarbek@gmail.com> To: familienarchiv@genealogie-fritsche.de, y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Date: Samstag, 10. März 2012 03:53:38 > <  Galicia and the north of Portugal not only is the area on the > Iberian peninsula having the highest density of placenames of Germanic > (only > Suebian) origin but also shows a focused significant higher hg I level > than the rest of Iberia!> Yes, you are right that in this > North-Western corner of Galicia the share of > I1 is a little higher. This could be linked to Suebi, as the share of > I1 is significantly increased in the area of the Suebi expansion in > Julius Caesar times - along the Rhine valley up to Switzerland. So > Suebi could have a significant share of I1. > Best, > Marek Skarbek Kozietulski ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4861 - Release Date: 03/09/12 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ken, The challenge is herding a large group of people, and if you look at the Y-DNA chart every haplotype group headline is marked with the SNPs that are assumed positive and the text " tests recommended". In plain words, the instructions suggest testing to confirm the teories. To be somewhat blunt, it's not a scientific approach. The problem is that most people simply do as they're told. We know (or at least assume) that you and the project administrators have done an excellent job. Maybe a better apporoach is to challenge us tp prove you wrong. ;-) At least, the value of testing negative must be made clear enough tp encourage a better testing approach. H.Styri > From: Kenneth Nordtvedt [knordtvedt@bresnan.net] > Sent: 2012-03-10 18:20:28 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: [yDNAhgI] Testing Bandwagons > > SNPs are mainly useful for dividing populations, although sometimes they can to a degree unite haplotypes which otherwise show little affinity for each other. > > Today we had a flood of L801+ who all tested Z186 and all were derived for this new snp as well. I have not yet plowed through the order records, but I hope there are some L801- who are testing for Z186. No such test results were reported out today. > > There are many different clades of M223+ L801- Continental. There is no necessary reason the borderline between L801 derived and ancestrals will coincide with the borderline between Z186 derived and ancestral --- although they could. > > So rather than do tests on new snps in a bandwagon manner, the new snp should be investigated from ?both sides? of the divide --- so to speak. > > If you are in an odd clade or cluster of M223+ Continental it will be more informative for us if you test for Z186 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Roy, Are you Z60+ ? If so, then your Z73+ result would presumably mean that Z73 is downstream of Z60, rather than parallel to it. Looks like the ISOGG I1 tree will need updating again if I correctly understand your result. Terry On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Roy Silfven <rsilfven@bendcable.com>wrote: > FTDNA reports me as Z73+ and (as expected) Z382-. > Kit 154151, Y-Search MUZGY. > > Roy Silfven > rsilfven@bendcable.com > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

<< This could be linked to Suebi, as the share of I1 is significantly increased in the area of the Suebi expansion in Julius Caesar times - along the Rhine valley up to Switzerland.>> Marek, "the area of the Suebi expansion in Julius Caesar times" you refer to, regarding an early and by population numerously not that important settlement is the same area the Suebo-Alemannic final and large settlement took place about 300 years later and the area where this Suebian population still is living today. The Alemannic "tribes" always were part of the geographicly between lower river Elbe and what is Slovakia currently largely distributed and numerous Suebian federation, with tribes like the Semnoni, Warni, Langobardi, Hermunduri, Quadi, Marcomanni, and some more tribes. All of them belonged to the Elbe Germanics, as a synonym to the Suebi and their federation. "Alemanni" means "all men", not a tribe but rather large groups of Suebian warriors from different Suebian tribes in order to warfare against the Roman empire. As of about the year 230 the Alemannic storm ran permanently and widely against the borders (the Roman "limes") of the Roman Empire in current central, southern and southwestern Germany. The Romans retreated and the Suebo-Alemannic tribes settled and expanded finally largely between the river Neckar and upstream along river Rhine, in the Alsace (an area name which means "Seats of the Alemans"), and later in Switzerland and in western Austria. So rather this later, large and final settling is the reason why you can find a significant percentage of hg I1 in these areas. And besides this, it also can mean why I myself bear the I1 hg for possibly being descendant of Suebian ancestors, settling in the Thuringian area - at least being descendant from the I1 founder in northern Germany and the lower Elbe basin especially ca. 8000 years ago, thousands of years before Germanic tribes found their Pre-Germanic origin by melting Scandinavian and northern German Old Europeans and immigrating Indoeuropeans. << So Suebi could have a significant share of I1.>> Possibly yes, see above. Best regards. Jürgen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Suebi in Galicia and Portugal (was: New I1-Iber clade in I1xL22) From: Marek Skarbek Kozietulski <msskarbek@gmail.com> To: familienarchiv@genealogie-fritsche.de, y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Date: Samstag, 10. März 2012 03:53:38 > < Galicia and the north of Portugal not only is the area on the Iberian > peninsula having the highest density of placenames of Germanic (only > Suebian) origin but also shows a focused significant higher hg I level than > the rest of Iberia!> > Yes, you are right that in this North-Western corner of Galicia the share of > I1 is a little higher. This could be linked to Suebi, as the share of I1 is > significantly increased in the area of the Suebi expansion in Julius Caesar > times - along the Rhine valley up to Switzerland. So Suebi could have a > significant share of I1. > Best, > Marek Skarbek Kozietulski

Robust clade I1-AS3 is turning out Z382+ -----Original Message----- From: Julie Frame Falk Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 8:08 PM To: Y-DNA Haplogroup I Subject: [yDNAhgI] Z58 (and downstream) and Z63 Dear List For those who tested positive for Z63, or Z58 and/or one of its downstream SNPs and are not members of the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project at FTDNA, you may find the Project’s Surname SNP Tree a useful guide if you are trying to decide which downstream SNP to test next. This chart is updated regularly, but I thought I would share a link to the latest version because there have been some positive results for Z73 and Z382. I will leave this file in my Dropbox account for a short period of time in case anyone wishes to download a copy: Surname SNP Tree link (ver. 11 Mar 2012): http://db.tt/97FNiNm1 SNP Distribution Maps Links: Z58+ Map: http://g.co/maps/gd879 Z63+ Map: http://g.co/maps/ahnxj I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project website: http://bit.ly/I1Z58andI1Z63 Kind regards Julie Frame Falk ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message