You are certainly not in a generic bucket next to AS2. You are a core member of the I1-ESc-13 clade. While there are 2 or 3 unaffiliated Z138+ and/or Z139+ right now, the others are either AS2 or this robust Scot-dominated clade which also interestingly has a Dane and a Norwegian. I count about 30 in the clade of which I'd call 18 as making up the most reliable core. 5 have extended to 111 markers, with there being three markers in the 68-111 panel which add much substance to the clade. The node age where the two branches, one to AS2, the other to ESc-13, part ways is quite a long time ago. See "tree for I1" at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Derek Paterson Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 2:31 PM To: Ydna I1 list Subject: [yDNAhgI] Fw: I1* KN Z138/Z139 ------Original Message------ From: Derek Paterson To: Ydna I1 list Subject: I1* KN Z138/Z139 Sent: 9 Feb 2012 03:01 Hi Ken/all I've just done a bunch of new tests (FTDNA kit 128312) and following Ken's latest tree I seem to be alongside him in a generic bucket next to AS2. Are there many others in this clade/lack of clade? Genealogy is pretty solid lowland Scot back to early 18th century. Matches in FTDNA are all expats which I think skews things a little. P38+ M253+ P30+ P40+ Z58+ Z139+ Z138+ P259- P109- M227- M21- M72- L338- L33- S142/L22- L211- Z63- Z59- Z131- Anything promising in new Z tests that might further split this group? Best Derek ------------------ ------------------------------- 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

Probably depends on your goal. I found Coe, Parr, and a Bartlett Z63+ haplotypes in my database, but they certainly did not look close to each other. You may be refering to other haplotypes. One would need to see the haplotypes side by side and also know your goals to suggest which route makes most sense (and cents). -----Original Message----- From: Ron Bartlett Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 1:57 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] My Z63 results and question Tested Z63+. I have two 35/37 matches with two different surnames from my own. I'm Bartlett and they're Coe and Parr. Would it be of value (and less costly) to have them test Z63 rather than have them upgrade 67 markers which I've already done? Ron Bartlett ------------------------------- 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

Tested Z63+. I have two 35/37 matches with two different surnames from my own. I'm Bartlett and they're Coe and Parr. Would it be of value (and less costly) to have them test Z63 rather than have them upgrade 67 markers which I've already done? Ron Bartlett

It is a business cost for them to do so in a timely manner. For us interested hobbyists the out-of-pocket cost is very minimal. They have to allocate their resources in an efficient manner; and remember, they have the entire y tree to keep updated, as well as their other many other tasks. When the company gets sold out to a mega-corporation they want the financial books to look great. Yikes! I have a bunch of nightmare images of what happens to the hobby when such a buy out happens. -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 7:53 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? Unfortunately, you didn't answer my question. I asked why FTDNA haven't updated their _draft_ tree. I guess only FTDNA can provide us with an answer. H.Styri > From: Aaron Salles Torres [sallfertorr@yahoo.com] > Sent: 2012-02-19 15:22:40 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > Answering your question, there are no issues with L801. FT DNA, however, > updates their official tree only once a year. > > There are many misunderstandings regarding SNP's downstream from M223. I > don't know where such misunderstandings originate but I know why they are > perpetuated: people aren't looking at the sources. The biggest, most > reliable source is the SNP results page of our M223 project, which can > then be contrasted with our Y-STR results page. It is publicly available > for anyone to see here: > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/M223-Y-Clan/default.aspx?section=ysnp > . > > As Ken said, the incorrect interpretations perpetuated by the ISOGG M223 > tree and by the FT DNA y tree are leading customers to order tests that > are not applicable to them. > > The only correct, updated M223 tree is the one displayed here: > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/M223-Y-Clan/default.aspx?section=news > . > > Please note that I don't touch on M379 for a reason: it was mentioned by a > single source as being observed in an individual in Pakistan many years > ago and hasn't been seen again since. I don't believe there is enough > information to discard a lab error, much less to place it correctly on the > M223 tree. > > I copy the only up-to-date M223 tree here: > > > 1- M223* (I2b1-X, I2b1-XX, Roots-X, Roots/L812-) > > 1.1- L812* (Roots) > > 1.1.1- L319 (Roots) > > 1.2- L801* (Cont1, Cont1a, Cont1b, Cont2a, Cont2b/P95-) > > 1.2.1- P95 (Cont2b) > > 1.3- P78 (Cont3a) > > 1.4- L623, L147.4 (Cont2c) > > 1.5- M284* (Isles E) > > 1.5.1-L126, L137, L369 (Isles Limbo, Isles Sc) > > Best regards, > Aaron Torres > > Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > Saturday, February 18, 2012 12:56 PM > From: > "Haakon Styri" <styri@online.no> > To: > y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Using ISOGG haplogroup names the P95 haplogroup needs to be renamed > because it's a subhaplogroup of L801. Not a big issue, really. > > If there are any issues regarding L801 I don't know about them, but FTDNA > haven't adjusted their draft tree to display P95 as a subhaplogroup of > L801. That makes me ask: are there any issues? Why is FTDNA delaying a > simple update of > the draft tree? > > H.Styri > > ------------------------------- > 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

-----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:46 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Additional results for a Z140+ You (with Z140+) are at the downstream end of the line for what is presently available in the catalog for customer order. If Z141 comes into the catalog you may want to test it as a pioneer to see if it is phyloequivalent to Z140. There is no reason it should be in a complete sense. If Z61 and Z62, two snps intermediate to your Z60+ and Z140+ become available in the catalog, you might want to check if 1000 Genomes is consistent in their proposed tree. But this would be less important than checking Z141 in the short term. When you look for Z141, be careful; ftdna's software brings up Z1411 when you interrogate for Z141. You want Z141. riginal Message----- From: r0berts0n Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:30 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com ; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com ; I1-Z58andZ63@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: [DNA] Additional results for a Z140+ FTDNA Kit Number: 94611 YSearch ID: RVKNK I have just received 2 SNP results Z60+ and L592-. No surprises. The purpose of this note is to provide ALL my (I1) SNP results to those constructing SNP trees for Haplogroup I1. I've noticed that some of my results are missing from several tables I have seen - presumably because I have tested with 2 other companies in addition to FTDNA. Here are my TESTED (ie no presumptions) results: Positive (derived): M253+,P30+,P40+,M307+,S62+,S63+,S64+,S65+,S66+,S107+,S108+,S109+,S110+,S111+ ,Z58+,Z59+,Z60+,Z140+ Negative (ancestral): M21-,M227-,M72-,P259-,L22-,P109-,L211-,P37.2-,M26-,M284-,M223-,L803-,L592-,L 338-,Z138-,Z139-,Z63-,M514-,Z131- Duncan Robertson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

FT DNA has updated their draft tree (both L801 and L812 are there). Unfortunately, there is some incorrect information that Thomas Krahn, responsible for the tree, needs to fix. Aaron Torres Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:53 AM From: "Haakon Styri" <styri@online.no> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Unfortunately, you didn't answer my question. I asked why FTDNA haven't updated their _draft_ tree. I guess only FTDNA can provide us with an answer. H.Styri

Connie, the tree you were looking at is from 2008. As new SNPs are 'discovered', the 'names' of the different sub-clades can change. Your husband is still P109+, but I1c is the 'old' name. Have a look at the ISOGG tree for 2012: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html And from FTDNA: http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=63278919 Your husband does not need to test for P259. melissa springer robards On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Peter and Connie Bradish <bradish@attglobal.net> wrote: > My husband is I1d1  L22+  P109+ according to FtDNA  Kit number 76658 > > If I understand the following tree Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree on the > University of Arizona website > > http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/new_binary_polymorphism/supplementary_data/Y-Chromosome%20Phylogenetic%20Tree.pdf > > Y Chromosome Consortium Supplementary Data (Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree) > > correctly,            P109+ is now I1c             with P259+ being > I1d.     Yes?  No? > > On Ken Nordtvedt  Tree for 1 Sept 2011, Tree for I1 1 Feb 2012 and ISOGG > vs FtDNA Haplotrees of 6 Jan 2012,  I1d1 is listed as L22+ and P109+ > > Do we need to test further?   SNP 259?  Or is my husband by being P109+ > automatically P259- ? > > Thank you, Connie B. > > ------------------------------- > 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

Answering your question, there are no issues with L801. FT DNA, however, updates their official tree only once a year. There are many misunderstandings regarding SNP's downstream from M223. I don't know where such misunderstandings originate but I know why they are perpetuated: people aren't looking at the sources. The biggest, most reliable source is the SNP results page of our M223 project, which can then be contrasted with our Y-STR results page. It is publicly available for anyone to see here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/M223-Y-Clan/default.aspx?section=ysnp . As Ken said, the incorrect interpretations perpetuated by the ISOGG M223 tree and by the FT DNA y tree are leading customers to order tests that are not applicable to them. The only correct, updated M223 tree is the one displayed here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/M223-Y-Clan/default.aspx?section=news . Please note that I don't touch on M379 for a reason: it was mentioned by a single source as being observed in an individual in Pakistan many years ago and hasn't been seen again since. I don't believe there is enough information to discard a lab error, much less to place it correctly on the M223 tree. I copy the only up-to-date M223 tree here: 1- M223* (I2b1-X, I2b1-XX, Roots-X, Roots/L812-) 1.1- L812* (Roots) 1.1.1- L319 (Roots) 1.2- L801* (Cont1, Cont1a, Cont1b, Cont2a, Cont2b/P95-) 1.2.1- P95 (Cont2b) 1.3- P78 (Cont3a) 1.4- L623, L147.4 (Cont2c) 1.5- M284* (Isles E) 1.5.1-L126, L137, L369 (Isles Limbo, Isles Sc) Best regards, Aaron Torres Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? Saturday, February 18, 2012 12:56 PM From: "Haakon Styri" <styri@online.no> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Using ISOGG haplogroup names the P95 haplogroup needs to be renamed because it's a subhaplogroup of L801. Not a big issue, really. If there are any issues regarding L801 I don't know about them, but FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree to display P95 as a subhaplogroup of L801. That makes me ask: are there any issues? Why is FTDNA delaying a simple update of the draft tree? H.Styri

The part of the “I” tree at ISOGG downstream of M223+ needs lots of work. I was reviewing a person’s snp test results tonight, and it could very well be that tree helped to lead the person into taking unnecessary snp tests. I believe the FTDNA draft tree contains the same error in this sector.

Using ISOGG haplogroup names the P95 haplogroup needs to be renamed because it's a subhaplogroup of L801. Not a big issue, really. If there are any issues regarding L801 I don't know about them, but FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree to display P95 as a subhaplogroup of L801. That makes me ask: are there any issues? Why is FTDNA delaying a simple update of the draft tree? H.Styri > From: Kenneth Nordtvedt [knordtvedt@bresnan.net] > Sent: 2012-02-18 18:07:30 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > [[ P95+ has been found to be L801+. L801+ is a hugely larger upstream > haplogroup which has P95+ as a tiny, tiny subhaplogroup. > > What's the issue you are talking about? Don't get it? KN ]] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Haakon Styri > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:54 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > In the case of L801 there may be a reason to hold back the process of > renaming P95 until a few other SNPs are tested. I believe 1k gemimes have > pointed out some Zs that should be tested. However, ISOGG should at least > signal that they've put L801 on hold or something. To state that there is a > need for "investigation" would probably be misleading. ;-) > > I'm more surprised that FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree. Are there > some issues with L801 they haven't told us about? > > H.Styri > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

In the case of L801 there may be a reason to hold back the process of renaming P95 until a few other SNPs are tested. I believe 1k gemimes have pointed out some Zs that should be tested. However, ISOGG should at least signal that they've put L801 on hold or something. To state that there is a need for "investigation" would probably be misleading. ;-) I'm more surprised that FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree. Are there some issues with L801 they haven't told us about? H.Styri > From: Aaron Salles Torres [sallfertorr@yahoo.com] > Sent: 2012-02-18 16:04:38 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Cc: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > Meanwhile, M223 SNP's like L801, which has over 60 results from across the board, are not even listed as "under investigation." There really should be more method to this. That's a good way to lose credibility. > > Aaron Torres > > From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> > Subject: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:26:19 -0700 > > What?s going on with the I1 tree at this site? > > A bunch of snps Z61, Z62, Z141 are put in their tree, but I don?t believe FTDNA or anyone else has made them available for public purchase? > > So we only have reports of 1000 Genomes that they exist and are where suggested? > > On other hand Z131 which is in the catalog at FTDNA is not in the tree, nor is DF29 (Z131+ has not been found publically). 1000 Genomes reports existence of these snps just as they do the previous mentioned ones. > > What?s the consistent rule, IF ANY, governing the ISOGG tree construction? > > ------------------------------- > 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

My husband is I1d1 L22+ P109+ according to FtDNA Kit number 76658 If I understand the following tree Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree on the University of Arizona website http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/new_binary_polymorphism/supplementary_data/Y-Chromosome%20Phylogenetic%20Tree.pdf Y Chromosome Consortium Supplementary Data (Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree) correctly, P109+ is now I1c with P259+ being I1d. Yes? No? On Ken Nordtvedt Tree for 1 Sept 2011, Tree for I1 1 Feb 2012 and ISOGG vs FtDNA Haplotrees of 6 Jan 2012, I1d1 is listed as L22+ and P109+ Do we need to test further? SNP 259? Or is my husband by being P109+ automatically P259- ? Thank you, Connie B.

SNPs for I1xL22 downstream of available-to-customer snps and reported by 1000 Genomes. Someday they'll be in FTDNA catalog ------ I believe. -----Original Message----- From: Dora Smith Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:39 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? On 2/17/2012 12:26 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > What’s going on with the I1 tree at this site? > > A bunch of snps Z61, Z62, Z141 are put in their tree, but I don’t believe > FTDNA or anyone else has made them available for public purchase? > What are Z61, Z62, and Z141? ------------------------------- 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, I have tested positive for the scenario you mentioned yesterday. Any advice for testing additional markers? Bob Haskins From: Robert Haskins [mailto:rjhaskins@qwest.net] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:37 AM To: 'y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com' Subject: N5004 Latest SNP Test Results: AS2 - I1f2 Here are my latest results from FTDNA: Z58+ Z139+ Z138+ Z59- L338- Bob Haskins rjhaskins@qwest.net FTDNA #N5004 Ysearch 5ET8U AS2, I1f2

[[ P95+ has been found to be L801+. L801+ is a hugely larger upstream haplogroup which has P95+ as a tiny, tiny subhaplogroup. What's the issue you are talking about? Don't get it? KN ]] -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:54 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? In the case of L801 there may be a reason to hold back the process of renaming P95 until a few other SNPs are tested. I believe 1k gemimes have pointed out some Zs that should be tested. However, ISOGG should at least signal that they've put L801 on hold or something. To state that there is a need for "investigation" would probably be misleading. ;-) I'm more surprised that FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree. Are there some issues with L801 they haven't told us about? H.Styri

Z138+ Z139+ is presently the end of the snp road for AS2 folks and AS-ESc-13 folks. And I see you have expanded to 111 markers and helped reveal the additional identifying strs for AS2. Someday I will expand my Generations7 program for evaluating intraclade and interclade variance age estimates. These additional strs will then find their full usefulness. Ken -----Original Message----- From: Robert Haskins Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:55 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] FW: N5004 Latest SNP Test Results: AS2 - I1f2 Ken, I have tested positive for the scenario you mentioned yesterday. Any advice for testing additional markers? Bob Haskins From: Robert Haskins [mailto:rjhaskins@qwest.net] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:37 AM To: 'y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com' Subject: N5004 Latest SNP Test Results: AS2 - I1f2 Here are my latest results from FTDNA: Z58+ Z139+ Z138+ Z59- L338- Bob Haskins rjhaskins@qwest.net FTDNA #N5004 Ysearch 5ET8U AS2, I1f2 ------------------------------- 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

Z59 appears to be downstream of Z58. So people who are Z58+ can be either Z59+ or Z59-. I can count 93 people, who are Z58+ with Z59-. So the answer to your first question is at least 93 people, which is more than none. And Z138 appears to be downstream of Z139. So there can be Z139+,Z138+ people and Z139+,Z138- people. And indeed, Ken, you yourself are one of the Z139+,Z138- people. If those pairs of SNP's had the opposite downstream ordering, then that would be totally inconsistent with the data we have. Z59 being downstream of Z5, and Z138 being downstream of Z139 is the only interpretation of the data barring any non-unique events. Terry On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net>wrote: > Anyone yet found Z58+ but Z59- ? I don’t have such a person. > > Has anyone split Z138 and Z139 yet? I don’t have one, but these markers > have been tested much less. > > Remember: there is a decent chance I1-AS10 and I1-AS1313 may be Z138+ > and/or Z139+ > > But we have no results or even orders yet from these clades! > > Ken > >

Ken As I read it, the new ISOGG tree has Z73 (I1f2a) below Z138 and Z139 (I1f2). Like you, I thought Z73 was below Z60. Regards Julie Frame Falk <<From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Then downstream of z60 are Z140 and Z73. first is in the catalog, and second should be by end of day.>> <<From: Wim Callewaert Z59+ here. Testing Z60 is now the only option I suppose.>>

Another neglected I1xL22 clade is I1-AS-1312 DYS19 = 13 DYS464b = 12 DYS447 = 22 DYS446 = 14 DYS437 = 15 It needs basic z series snps Z58, Z63, Z131 It needs a couple extensions to include 68-111 strs. Presently there are none of either.

Meanwhile, M223 SNP's like L801, which has over 60 results from across the board, are not even listed as "under investigation." There really should be more method to this. That's a good way to lose credibility. Aaron Torres From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> Subject: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:26:19 -0700 What’s going on with the I1 tree at this site? A bunch of snps Z61, Z62, Z141 are put in their tree, but I don’t believe FTDNA or anyone else has made them available for public purchase? So we only have reports of 1000 Genomes that they exist and are where suggested? On other hand Z131 which is in the catalog at FTDNA is not in the tree, nor is DF29 (Z131+ has not been found publically). 1000 Genomes reports existence of these snps just as they do the previous mentioned ones. What’s the consistent rule, IF ANY, governing the ISOGG tree construction?