Today I recieved a email notifying me that Ancestry will be retiring Y-DNA and MT-DNA testing and that I can download my raw data as a CSV file prior to September 5, 2014 While I have transferred and extended my test at FTDNA most of the Surname tests are still at Ancestry with only a few at FTDNA. The recent results at FTDNA for Big-Y and the changes to the tree have left me less than confident in the commitment to Y-DNA testing at FTDNA. Y-Seq looks like a alternitive for the Ancestry tests to be extended and I have been trying to understand the I-P109 results in Kens tree from 20 May 2014 so I can recomend that those who tested at Ancestry can test SNP to confirm P109 and deturmine a subclade with in the P109 group for the Hulse Surname. It appears that this surname has two main groups one with a 13 at DYS393 and the other with a 14 at DYS393. the age calculated by Ken to a MRCA was around 900 years for the groups. I have been trying to identify a group of SNP down stream from P109 but not so far down stream that they appear to be private for the individule where they were found. so far tests with a 1 step difference at 67 markers have not matched to the SNP for the individules where they were found. This announcemnt by Ancestry is giving me a new sence of urgency to make progress here. Allen B1424

There is www.yseq.net who will do y snps that customers find downstream in the tree and request. Prices are decent. So hopefully we will not be down to one in a total sense. My initial experience was that they produced quick response times for tests, but at the moment I am with surprise waiting for some key test results from them. Since the pending BigY test list is rather skimpy, future progress in downstream tree development will require many people ordering as individual snps those relevant to their location in the tree and previously found in BigY or other full y genome products. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Britton Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:18 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] And then there was one Ancestry has just announced that Y-DNA and Mt-DNA tests will no longer be offered or supported after September 5, 2014. Customers who want to preserve their data must download it before that date. Lindsey ------------------------------- 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 comparing Chromo2 and FTDNA results there are several issues at play: 1. Which strand is reported? I found the following links usefull: https://customercare.23andme.com/entries/21272593-Which-DNA-strand-does-23andMe-report-for-SNP-genotypes- https://www.biostars.org/p/12026/ 2. What ancestral value is used as reference? For example, FTDNA says that the ancestral S2606 value is "T" while BritDNA says it is "C" (and "A" is derived). So one of the two must be wrong. It might explain though why all FTDNA results for S2606 turned out to be no-calls ... 3. Are we talking about a mutation or a back mutation? Chromo2 also makes a difference between an ancestral value (-), the mutated value (+) and the backmutated value (!) Best, Hans > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:06:07 -0400 > From: vaeringi@gmail.com > To: I1-Z58andZ63@yahoogroups.com.au; y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: [yDNAhgI] S2078 Problem Corrected and PR683 Now Available for Testing > > This might be valuable to others. I requested that FTDNA add S2078 to the > catalog for the Z63 sector. S2078 occurs with robust frequency based on > Big Y and Chromo2 results. Unfortunately, FTNDA inverted the consensus and > reference alleles. This caused everyone who tested to get the opposite > result, that is to say those who were positive were showing negative and > vice versa. This naturally created much confusion. I think the take away > is to audit newly requested SNP results with care, if being done at FTDNA, > in case this is not an one time problem. As stated in the title, PR683 > which shows to be immediately downstream of S2078 is now available and > which has divided some Big Y kits already. > > Paul > > ------------------------------- > 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 might be valuable to others. I requested that FTDNA add S2078 to the catalog for the Z63 sector. S2078 occurs with robust frequency based on Big Y and Chromo2 results. Unfortunately, FTNDA inverted the consensus and reference alleles. This caused everyone who tested to get the opposite result, that is to say those who were positive were showing negative and vice versa. This naturally created much confusion. I think the take away is to audit newly requested SNP results with care, if being done at FTDNA, in case this is not an one time problem. As stated in the title, PR683 which shows to be immediately downstream of S2078 is now available and which has divided some Big Y kits already. Paul

Tremendens et fascinans. Now THAT is the type of science exploration (even if only via thought-experiment at the moment) which I REALLY like to see. Thanks for sharing this, Ken! T.J. (Terry) White Kit 177950 Co-Admin., Brewer DNA Project On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2646257/Humans-colonise-space-sending-DNA-distant-planets-printing-new-civilisation-experts-claim.html > > This actually seems more feasible than transporting whole living beings. > I just hope they include some haplogroup I ydna, seeing how many of the > nations with I are sub-subsistent in reproduction rate. > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- "All forces have been steadily employ’d to complete and delight me. ..." Walt Whitman, "Leaves of Grass," 14, line 1165

Apparently they did find some 8000 year old bones of the M423+ L621- L161- status. Do you mean CTS595+ subclades but not M26+ or S21825+ ? Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Cullen Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 4:15 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] P37* ????? I have never seen a P37+ CTS595- M423- person. And I have never seen a M423+ L621- L161- person. But there are lots of rare CTS595+ subclades. Bernie ------------------------------- 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

I have never seen a P37+ CTS595- M423- person. And I have never seen a M423+ L621- L161- person. But there are lots of rare CTS595+ subclades. Bernie

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2646257/Humans-colonise-space-sending-DNA-distant-planets-printing-new-civilisation-experts-claim.html This actually seems more feasible than transporting whole living beings. I just hope they include some haplogroup I ydna, seeing how many of the nations with I are sub-subsistent in reproduction rate. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

Hi everyone, I heard that STRs can tag SNPs. I have the high range on the frequency count for the DYS712 STR and was wondering if anyone could tell me the position of that STR on the YChr? In hopes to find a UNV or UEP that matches from the same region. According to Ken I have quite a few unique SNPs to choose from. Richard reed

I have never seen an I-P37*. In short it would be P37+ CTS595- M423- Has anyone seen one of these alive? Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

Hi Emil and Ryan, you are correct, I do have one too many 1s in the numbering on the Project's News page that lists the SNP tree. I will fix it up but It should read as: 1.2.2.1.1.1- CTS6433* (Cont2a, Cont2to1, Cont1-X) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1- Z78* (Cont1-XX) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1- Z171* (Cont1-XXX) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1- Z185 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1- Z180 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1- L1198* (Cont1, Cont1a) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1- Z166 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1- Z190* (Cont1b, Cont1c) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1- Z79 (Cont1c1) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2- PF6654 (Cont1c2) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 - F3195 (Cont1d) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 - P195 (Cont1e) 1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4 - PF5268 (Cont1f) 1.2.2.1.1.1.2- ZS20 1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1- CTS661, L1272 1.2.2.1.1.1.3- PF3292 1.2.2.1.1.1.3.1-CTS7010 (Cont2a Group 2a) 1.2.2.1.1.1.4- CTS5332 (Cont2a Group 4) 1.2.2.1.1.2- CTS1977* (Cont2b/P95-) 1.2.2.1.1.2.1- P95 (Cont2b) 1.2.2.1.1.2.2- L1201 (Cont2b) 1.2.2.1.1.2.3- CTS1858 (Cont2b) 1.2.2.1.1.3- L1317, L1290 (ContX) 1.2.2.1.2- L623, L147.4 (Cont2c) 1.2.2.1.3- CTS11871 (Cont2e) There will be other SNPs to incorporate into this tree as a result of Chromo2 and Big Y testing. Wayne On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Emil Crawford <emilkcrawford@msn.com> wrote: > I read it the same way you do. It seems to me that CTS1977 (for example) > should be 1.2.2.1.1.2 instead of 1.2.2.1.1.1.2 if it is actually parallel > to, as opposed to downstream of CTS6433. My understanding from looking at > Nordtvedt's charts is that it is parallel to rather than downstream of > CTS6433. It is a bit confusing to try to decipher for the novice hobbyist > (like me) the way it is numbered. > Emil > > > > --Forwarded Message Attachment-- > From: ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 18:14:58 +0000 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) > > No, Wayne. I am reading the FTDNA M223 project tree correctly and it > wrongly places everything beneath CTS6433. The branches aren't numbered > right. There's an extra .1. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

I was advised it was a glitch in their system and an email went out to Big Y participants that those affected would be returned to their previous results. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Looks to me they reinstated original csv download file, anyway. Thank > goodness. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Mayka > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:32 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Beware - BIG Y results being altered > > The two problems I saw have now been remedied--perhaps simply by reverting > to the earlier released results. > > From: Lawrence Mayka [mailto:lmayka@ameritech.net] > > Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one > list to another. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hello, all CTS6433 has been known to be parallel to CTS1977 for a long time. It was simply a problem in the numbering of the rows. This mistake has been fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Please let me know if you catch anything else. You may always refer to the ISOGG tree if you have any questions as well: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html .  Aaron Torres Today's Topics:   1. Re: Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I Digest, Vol 9, Issue 455 (Emil Crawford) I read it the same way  you do.  It seems to me that CTS1977 (for example) should be 1.2.2.1.1.2 instead of 1.2.2.1.1.1.2 if it is actually parallel to, as opposed to downstream of CTS6433.  My understanding from looking at Nordtvedt's charts is that it is parallel to rather than downstream of CTS6433.  It is a bit confusing to try to decipher for the novice hobbyist (like me) the way it is numbered. Emil --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 18:14:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) No, Wayne.  I am reading the FTDNA M223 project tree correctly and it wrongly places everything beneath CTS6433.  The branches aren't numbered right.  There's an extra .1.                         I was advised it was a glitch in their system and an email went out to Big Y participants that those affected would be returned to their previous results.

Ryan, It would appear you are not reading the tree correctly. The * you have noted infers there are mostly likely further SNPs downstream of that SNP. L801, Z183, Z76 are phyloequivalent SNPs to each other. As you tested for L801, I will use that one. CTS6433 and CTS1977 and L1290 / L1317 are three "parallel" branches downstream of L801. There will be others to be discovered but for now there are three with known SNPs. If we look at the CTS6433 branch, then Z78 / Z171 and PF3292 and ZS20 and CTS5332 and S12606 are five further branches that we know of that are downstream of CTS6433. Downstream on the Z78 / Z171 branch is Z185, then Z180, then L1198, then Z166, then Z187 then we know of further branches Z190 and F3195 and P195 and PF5268 for starters. Downstream on the PF3292 branch we know there is CTS7010. Downstream on the ZS20 branch we know there is at least CTS661 also known as L1272. Downstream on the CTS5332 branch further branches are yet to be discovered. Downstream on the S12606 branch we know there is at least S25451. What needs to be resolved is the placement of Z78 and Z171. Is it Z78 then Z171 or Z171 then Z78 or are they both phyloequivalent (when one is positive the other is also or when one is negative, the other is also)? This should not concern you specifically as your makers would indicate you are not part of this branch line. Of the other branches, only PF3292 is available to order at present as well as it's sub CTS7010. And CTS661 or L1272 can also be ordered for that sub-branch of ZS20 but people should check before they order these sub-branch SNPs. We have requests in to have ZS20, CTS5332 and S12606 added to the FTDNA order list. Hope that helps. Kenneth does have some M223 tree diagrams, if you have a look at his file index. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > Wayne, > > I just checked out the results page at the FTDNA M223 project. Now I am > really concerned. What's going on here? A quick look at the numbered > outline formatted tree structure shown to be current as of May 26, 2014 > shows what I believe to be numerous errors. As I read it, the tree lists > CTS6433* as 1.2.2.1.1.1. Okay. Then it places Z78*, CTS1977*, and L1317, > L1290 (no star) beneath or subsequent to CTS6433*. I know CTS1977 is not > downstream of CTS6433. Furthermore, the recently recommended to test SNPs > PF3292 and ZS20 are listed as subsequent or downstream of Z78*. If this is > accurate than why ask Z78- people to test it. > Am I reading this numerical tree structure correctly? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne R. Roberts [mailto:i.m223.roberts@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:15 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) > > Hello Ryan, > > Thanks for your posting and you raise some valid questions. However, I'm > not sure if you follow any of the discussions on the Project's Yahoogroups > email list or our Facebook page. If not, then you have been missing out. > > The Continental 1 and Continental 2a (CTS6433+) sectors of the I-M223 > Project are the largest sectors in the Project. Quite a few of the members > did Geno 2.0 when that was released and it was from Geno 2.0 that CTS6433 > was identified. This SNP linked Cont 1 (Z78+) and Cont2a (Z78-). Other new > SNPs were revealed from Geno 2.0 and over the past 1-2 years we have been > trying to place these SNPs into the Haplogroup I tree. Sometimes this can > only be done through individual SNP testing. In Cont 1 for example we have > been able to show that Z171 is upstream of Z185, that Z185 is upstream of > Z180, that Z180 is upstream of L1198 which in turn is upstream of Z166. > Some of these had been thought to be phyloequivalent and only though > testing, sometime selective testing, have this been disproved. We now need > to do the same with Z78 and Z171. > > Similarly for Cont2a, new SNPs found in the Geno 2.0 results of one or two > testers need to be proved derived for others and shown ancestral for > neighbouring clades. PF3292 and CTS7010 were found derived in one person, > Winter, who did Geno 2.0. Only with the release of BritainsDNA's Chromo2 > results earlier this year, was a second though anonymous, person found to > be PF3292+ but they were CTS7010-. So this revealed that CTS7010 was either > downstream of PF3292 or a misread by Geno 2.0. We now have both available > for order at FTDNA but people should test PF3292 first. It is one of the > SNPs included on the new FTDNA 2014 Haplotree. Please note, that six other > SNPs placed as downstream of M223 in the new tree are all WRONG. We have > asked they be removed. Looking at the Project's Y-DNA colorized results > spreadsheet will show you what Winter's haplotype looks like. Checking the > SNP page, one can see who has already tested for PF3292 and been found > ancestral. > > CTS5332 was found in the Geno 2.0 results for two testers that joined the > Project not too long ago. We had them test for or expand their STR markers > and we have asked FTDNA to add CTS5332 to the order list. Again looking at > the Project's spreadsheet you can see their haplotypes. > > CTS661 was another SNP identified through Geno 2.0. It has been found to > be the same SNP as L1272. Various members identified by their haplotype > tested for L1272 and were found derived. Recently CTS661 was added to the > FTDNA order list. A couple of members have tested for this to show results > are same as for L1272. Two of these CTS661+/L1272+ members tested with Big > Y and it has confirmed this result. Further more they were found to be > ZS20+. > > One CTS6433+ member, Hepworth, tested Chromo2 and was found to be ZS20+, > ZS21+, S8112+ but L1272-. He tested Big Y which confirmed this and two > others testing Big Y have also shown up the same. So we now know that > CTS661/L1272 is downstream of ZS20, ZS21 and S8112. We have been waiting 6 > months for ZS20 to be added to the FTDNA order list. Further new SNPs were > also identified. > > Big Y and Chromo2 have identified another branch of CTS6433 defined by the > SNPs, S12606, S17264 and S25383 with a sub-branch defined by S25451. > Pausback,and Myers are on this new branch with Fitzgerald on the > sub-branch. > > Big Y results are still being analysed and they should produce further new > SNPs for CTS6433+ sectors. The task then will be to have key ones added to > the FTDNA order list. As slow as things may seem, considerable progress is > being made in identifying new SNPs and having them recognised both by FTDNA > and ISOGG. > > I note that you have an interesting haplotype with your known terminal SNP > being L801 (equivalent to Z76, Z183, Z2198, CTS2392) but not on the new > FTDNA Haplotree. Another one we are working to have FTDNA list on the tree. > You are predicted CTS6433 but you could be CTS1977 as the diverse > haplotypes for both branches can be easily confused. Only testing can > really settle which branch - Cont2a or Cont2b. > > I hope this has helped clear up a few things for you. If you have any > questions, please ask and if any of us volunteers can answer them, we will. > Wayne. > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < > ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > > > Heard a lot about Big Y results generating new branches in I1. That's > > cool. It's been dead air on I2. Not sure if that's because of no I2 > > Big Y results released or no one is as good as Ken at analyzing them. > > Ken is pretty awesome. Thanks Ken! Then static over the air waves > > crackled into a scant report of M233 related updates. Scant, because > > there was little other than 'this group test this snp' to the update. > > I'd like more understanding about these new SNP's. I've been burned > > in the past ordering SNP's only to find they're equivalent. The > > following three SNP's were reported to come out of Geno 2.0 and Big Y, > > whatever that means, and were recommended to CTS6433 (Cont2a) members: > > > > PF3292 > > CTS7010 > > CTS5332 (possibly not offered yet by FTDNA, cause they suck) > > > > So what's the deal with these SNP's? In the old days, like a year > > ago, when a new SNP came out this distribution was abuzz with chatter. > > We need people from CTS6433 to test these, they'd say. Someone from > > this clade should test first, they'd say. It was all so exciting, I > > could hardly wait to read the next message. Now I barely get more than > 'test this.' > > > > Who is positive for these SNP's? Who's negative? Who has ordered them? > > Are there any STR markers that tag these SNPs? > > > > Ryan (losing interest fast, someone fan the flames) > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

No, Wayne. I am reading the FTDNA M223 project tree correctly and it wrongly places everything beneath CTS6433. The branches aren't numbered right. There's an extra .1. -----Original Message----- From: Wayne R. Roberts [mailto:i.m223.roberts@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 11:40 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) Ryan, It would appear you are not reading the tree correctly. The * you have noted infers there are mostly likely further SNPs downstream of that SNP. L801, Z183, Z76 are phyloequivalent SNPs to each other. As you tested for L801, I will use that one. CTS6433 and CTS1977 and L1290 / L1317 are three "parallel" branches downstream of L801. There will be others to be discovered but for now there are three with known SNPs. If we look at the CTS6433 branch, then Z78 / Z171 and PF3292 and ZS20 and CTS5332 and S12606 are five further branches that we know of that are downstream of CTS6433. Downstream on the Z78 / Z171 branch is Z185, then Z180, then L1198, then Z166, then Z187 then we know of further branches Z190 and F3195 and P195 and PF5268 for starters. Downstream on the PF3292 branch we know there is CTS7010. Downstream on the ZS20 branch we know there is at least CTS661 also known as L1272. Downstream on the CTS5332 branch further branches are yet to be discovered. Downstream on the S12606 branch we know there is at least S25451. What needs to be resolved is the placement of Z78 and Z171. Is it Z78 then Z171 or Z171 then Z78 or are they both phyloequivalent (when one is positive the other is also or when one is negative, the other is also)? This should not concern you specifically as your makers would indicate you are not part of this branch line. Of the other branches, only PF3292 is available to order at present as well as it's sub CTS7010. And CTS661 or L1272 can also be ordered for that sub-branch of ZS20 but people should check before they order these sub-branch SNPs. We have requests in to have ZS20, CTS5332 and S12606 added to the FTDNA order list. Hope that helps. Kenneth does have some M223 tree diagrams, if you have a look at his file index. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > Wayne, > > I just checked out the results page at the FTDNA M223 project. Now I > am really concerned. What's going on here? A quick look at the > numbered outline formatted tree structure shown to be current as of > May 26, 2014 shows what I believe to be numerous errors. As I read > it, the tree lists > CTS6433* as 1.2.2.1.1.1. Okay. Then it places Z78*, CTS1977*, and > L1317, > L1290 (no star) beneath or subsequent to CTS6433*. I know CTS1977 is > not downstream of CTS6433. Furthermore, the recently recommended to > test SNPs > PF3292 and ZS20 are listed as subsequent or downstream of Z78*. If > this is accurate than why ask Z78- people to test it. > Am I reading this numerical tree structure correctly? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne R. Roberts [mailto:i.m223.roberts@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:15 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) > > Hello Ryan, > > Thanks for your posting and you raise some valid questions. However, > I'm not sure if you follow any of the discussions on the Project's > Yahoogroups email list or our Facebook page. If not, then you have been missing out. > > The Continental 1 and Continental 2a (CTS6433+) sectors of the I-M223 > Project are the largest sectors in the Project. Quite a few of the > members did Geno 2.0 when that was released and it was from Geno 2.0 > that CTS6433 was identified. This SNP linked Cont 1 (Z78+) and Cont2a > (Z78-). Other new SNPs were revealed from Geno 2.0 and over the past > 1-2 years we have been trying to place these SNPs into the Haplogroup > I tree. Sometimes this can only be done through individual SNP > testing. In Cont 1 for example we have been able to show that Z171 is > upstream of Z185, that Z185 is upstream of Z180, that Z180 is upstream of L1198 which in turn is upstream of Z166. > Some of these had been thought to be phyloequivalent and only though > testing, sometime selective testing, have this been disproved. We now > need to do the same with Z78 and Z171. > > Similarly for Cont2a, new SNPs found in the Geno 2.0 results of one or > two testers need to be proved derived for others and shown ancestral > for neighbouring clades. PF3292 and CTS7010 were found derived in one > person, Winter, who did Geno 2.0. Only with the release of > BritainsDNA's Chromo2 results earlier this year, was a second though > anonymous, person found to be PF3292+ but they were CTS7010-. So this > revealed that CTS7010 was either downstream of PF3292 or a misread by > Geno 2.0. We now have both available for order at FTDNA but people > should test PF3292 first. It is one of the SNPs included on the new > FTDNA 2014 Haplotree. Please note, that six other SNPs placed as > downstream of M223 in the new tree are all WRONG. We have asked they > be removed. Looking at the Project's Y-DNA colorized results > spreadsheet will show you what Winter's haplotype looks like. Checking > the SNP page, one can see who has already tested for PF3292 and been found ancestral. > > CTS5332 was found in the Geno 2.0 results for two testers that joined > the Project not too long ago. We had them test for or expand their STR > markers and we have asked FTDNA to add CTS5332 to the order list. > Again looking at the Project's spreadsheet you can see their haplotypes. > > CTS661 was another SNP identified through Geno 2.0. It has been found > to be the same SNP as L1272. Various members identified by their > haplotype tested for L1272 and were found derived. Recently CTS661 was > added to the FTDNA order list. A couple of members have tested for > this to show results are same as for L1272. Two of these > CTS661+/L1272+ members tested with Big Y and it has confirmed this > result. Further more they were found to be > ZS20+. > > One CTS6433+ member, Hepworth, tested Chromo2 and was found to be > ZS20+, > ZS21+, S8112+ but L1272-. He tested Big Y which confirmed this and two > others testing Big Y have also shown up the same. So we now know that > CTS661/L1272 is downstream of ZS20, ZS21 and S8112. We have been > waiting 6 months for ZS20 to be added to the FTDNA order list. Further > new SNPs were also identified. > > Big Y and Chromo2 have identified another branch of CTS6433 defined by > the SNPs, S12606, S17264 and S25383 with a sub-branch defined by S25451. > Pausback,and Myers are on this new branch with Fitzgerald on the > sub-branch. > > Big Y results are still being analysed and they should produce further > new SNPs for CTS6433+ sectors. The task then will be to have key ones > added to the FTDNA order list. As slow as things may seem, > considerable progress is being made in identifying new SNPs and having > them recognised both by FTDNA and ISOGG. > > I note that you have an interesting haplotype with your known terminal > SNP being L801 (equivalent to Z76, Z183, Z2198, CTS2392) but not on > the new FTDNA Haplotree. Another one we are working to have FTDNA list on the tree. > You are predicted CTS6433 but you could be CTS1977 as the diverse > haplotypes for both branches can be easily confused. Only testing can > really settle which branch - Cont2a or Cont2b. > > I hope this has helped clear up a few things for you. If you have any > questions, please ask and if any of us volunteers can answer them, we will. > Wayne. > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < > ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > > > Heard a lot about Big Y results generating new branches in I1. > > That's cool. It's been dead air on I2. Not sure if that's because > > of no I2 Big Y results released or no one is as good as Ken at analyzing them. > > Ken is pretty awesome. Thanks Ken! Then static over the air waves > > crackled into a scant report of M233 related updates. Scant, > > because there was little other than 'this group test this snp' to the update. > > I'd like more understanding about these new SNP's. I've been burned > > in the past ordering SNP's only to find they're equivalent. The > > following three SNP's were reported to come out of Geno 2.0 and Big > > Y, whatever that means, and were recommended to CTS6433 (Cont2a) members: > > > > PF3292 > > CTS7010 > > CTS5332 (possibly not offered yet by FTDNA, cause they suck) > > > > So what's the deal with these SNP's? In the old days, like a year > > ago, when a new SNP came out this distribution was abuzz with chatter. > > We need people from CTS6433 to test these, they'd say. Someone from > > this clade should test first, they'd say. It was all so exciting, I > > could hardly wait to read the next message. Now I barely get more > > than > 'test this.' > > > > Who is positive for these SNP's? Who's negative? Who has ordered them? > > Are there any STR markers that tag these SNPs? > > > > Ryan (losing interest fast, someone fan the flames) > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

I read it the same way you do. It seems to me that CTS1977 (for example) should be 1.2.2.1.1.2 instead of 1.2.2.1.1.1.2 if it is actually parallel to, as opposed to downstream of CTS6433. My understanding from looking at Nordtvedt's charts is that it is parallel to rather than downstream of CTS6433. It is a bit confusing to try to decipher for the novice hobbyist (like me) the way it is numbered. Emil --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 18:14:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) No, Wayne. I am reading the FTDNA M223 project tree correctly and it wrongly places everything beneath CTS6433. The branches aren't numbered right. There's an extra .1.

Wayne, I just checked out the results page at the FTDNA M223 project. Now I am really concerned. What's going on here? A quick look at the numbered outline formatted tree structure shown to be current as of May 26, 2014 shows what I believe to be numerous errors. As I read it, the tree lists CTS6433* as 1.2.2.1.1.1. Okay. Then it places Z78*, CTS1977*, and L1317, L1290 (no star) beneath or subsequent to CTS6433*. I know CTS1977 is not downstream of CTS6433. Furthermore, the recently recommended to test SNPs PF3292 and ZS20 are listed as subsequent or downstream of Z78*. If this is accurate than why ask Z78- people to test it. Am I reading this numerical tree structure correctly? -----Original Message----- From: Wayne R. Roberts [mailto:i.m223.roberts@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:15 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) Hello Ryan, Thanks for your posting and you raise some valid questions. However, I'm not sure if you follow any of the discussions on the Project's Yahoogroups email list or our Facebook page. If not, then you have been missing out. The Continental 1 and Continental 2a (CTS6433+) sectors of the I-M223 Project are the largest sectors in the Project. Quite a few of the members did Geno 2.0 when that was released and it was from Geno 2.0 that CTS6433 was identified. This SNP linked Cont 1 (Z78+) and Cont2a (Z78-). Other new SNPs were revealed from Geno 2.0 and over the past 1-2 years we have been trying to place these SNPs into the Haplogroup I tree. Sometimes this can only be done through individual SNP testing. In Cont 1 for example we have been able to show that Z171 is upstream of Z185, that Z185 is upstream of Z180, that Z180 is upstream of L1198 which in turn is upstream of Z166. Some of these had been thought to be phyloequivalent and only though testing, sometime selective testing, have this been disproved. We now need to do the same with Z78 and Z171. Similarly for Cont2a, new SNPs found in the Geno 2.0 results of one or two testers need to be proved derived for others and shown ancestral for neighbouring clades. PF3292 and CTS7010 were found derived in one person, Winter, who did Geno 2.0. Only with the release of BritainsDNA's Chromo2 results earlier this year, was a second though anonymous, person found to be PF3292+ but they were CTS7010-. So this revealed that CTS7010 was either downstream of PF3292 or a misread by Geno 2.0. We now have both available for order at FTDNA but people should test PF3292 first. It is one of the SNPs included on the new FTDNA 2014 Haplotree. Please note, that six other SNPs placed as downstream of M223 in the new tree are all WRONG. We have asked they be removed. Looking at the Project's Y-DNA colorized results spreadsheet will show you what Winter's haplotype looks like. Checking the SNP page, one can see who has already tested for PF3292 and been found ancestral. CTS5332 was found in the Geno 2.0 results for two testers that joined the Project not too long ago. We had them test for or expand their STR markers and we have asked FTDNA to add CTS5332 to the order list. Again looking at the Project's spreadsheet you can see their haplotypes. CTS661 was another SNP identified through Geno 2.0. It has been found to be the same SNP as L1272. Various members identified by their haplotype tested for L1272 and were found derived. Recently CTS661 was added to the FTDNA order list. A couple of members have tested for this to show results are same as for L1272. Two of these CTS661+/L1272+ members tested with Big Y and it has confirmed this result. Further more they were found to be ZS20+. One CTS6433+ member, Hepworth, tested Chromo2 and was found to be ZS20+, ZS21+, S8112+ but L1272-. He tested Big Y which confirmed this and two others testing Big Y have also shown up the same. So we now know that CTS661/L1272 is downstream of ZS20, ZS21 and S8112. We have been waiting 6 months for ZS20 to be added to the FTDNA order list. Further new SNPs were also identified. Big Y and Chromo2 have identified another branch of CTS6433 defined by the SNPs, S12606, S17264 and S25383 with a sub-branch defined by S25451. Pausback,and Myers are on this new branch with Fitzgerald on the sub-branch. Big Y results are still being analysed and they should produce further new SNPs for CTS6433+ sectors. The task then will be to have key ones added to the FTDNA order list. As slow as things may seem, considerable progress is being made in identifying new SNPs and having them recognised both by FTDNA and ISOGG. I note that you have an interesting haplotype with your known terminal SNP being L801 (equivalent to Z76, Z183, Z2198, CTS2392) but not on the new FTDNA Haplotree. Another one we are working to have FTDNA list on the tree. You are predicted CTS6433 but you could be CTS1977 as the diverse haplotypes for both branches can be easily confused. Only testing can really settle which branch - Cont2a or Cont2b. I hope this has helped clear up a few things for you. If you have any questions, please ask and if any of us volunteers can answer them, we will. Wayne. On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > Heard a lot about Big Y results generating new branches in I1. That's > cool. It's been dead air on I2. Not sure if that's because of no I2 > Big Y results released or no one is as good as Ken at analyzing them. > Ken is pretty awesome. Thanks Ken! Then static over the air waves > crackled into a scant report of M233 related updates. Scant, because > there was little other than 'this group test this snp' to the update. > I'd like more understanding about these new SNP's. I've been burned > in the past ordering SNP's only to find they're equivalent. The > following three SNP's were reported to come out of Geno 2.0 and Big Y, > whatever that means, and were recommended to CTS6433 (Cont2a) members: > > PF3292 > CTS7010 > CTS5332 (possibly not offered yet by FTDNA, cause they suck) > > So what's the deal with these SNP's? In the old days, like a year > ago, when a new SNP came out this distribution was abuzz with chatter. > We need people from CTS6433 to test these, they'd say. Someone from > this clade should test first, they'd say. It was all so exciting, I > could hardly wait to read the next message. Now I barely get more than 'test this.' > > Who is positive for these SNP's? Who's negative? Who has ordered them? > Are there any STR markers that tag these SNPs? > > Ryan (losing interest fast, someone fan the flames) > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The two problems I saw have now been remedied--perhaps simply by reverting to the earlier released results. From: Lawrence Mayka [mailto:lmayka@ameritech.net] Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one list to another.

Looks to me they reinstated original csv download file, anyway. Thank goodness. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Mayka Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:32 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Beware - BIG Y results being altered The two problems I saw have now been remedied--perhaps simply by reverting to the earlier released results. From: Lawrence Mayka [mailto:lmayka@ameritech.net] Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one list to another. ------------------------------- 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

Where does Z-79 fit into all this? Sent from my iPad > On May 30, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Wayne R. Roberts" <i.m223.roberts@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ryan, > > It would appear you are not reading the tree correctly. The * you have > noted infers there are mostly likely further SNPs downstream of that SNP. > > L801, Z183, Z76 are phyloequivalent SNPs to each other. As you tested for > L801, I will use that one. > > CTS6433 and CTS1977 and L1290 / L1317 are three "parallel" branches > downstream of L801. There will be others to be discovered but for now there > are three with known SNPs. > > If we look at the CTS6433 branch, then Z78 / Z171 and PF3292 and ZS20 and > CTS5332 and S12606 are five further branches that we know of that are > downstream of CTS6433. > > Downstream on the Z78 / Z171 branch is Z185, then Z180, then L1198, then > Z166, then Z187 then we know of further branches Z190 and F3195 and P195 > and PF5268 for starters. > > Downstream on the PF3292 branch we know there is CTS7010. > > Downstream on the ZS20 branch we know there is at least CTS661 also known > as L1272. > > Downstream on the CTS5332 branch further branches are yet to be discovered. > > Downstream on the S12606 branch we know there is at least S25451. > > What needs to be resolved is the placement of Z78 and Z171. Is it Z78 then > Z171 or Z171 then Z78 or are they both phyloequivalent (when one is > positive the other is also or when one is negative, the other is also)? > This should not concern you specifically as your makers would indicate you > are not part of this branch line. > > Of the other branches, only PF3292 is available to order at present as well > as it's sub CTS7010. And CTS661 or L1272 can also be ordered for that > sub-branch of ZS20 but people should check before they order these > sub-branch SNPs. > > We have requests in to have ZS20, CTS5332 and S12606 added to the FTDNA > order list. > > Hope that helps. Kenneth does have some M223 tree diagrams, if you have a > look at his file index. > > > > > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < > ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > >> Wayne, >> >> I just checked out the results page at the FTDNA M223 project. Now I am >> really concerned. What's going on here? A quick look at the numbered >> outline formatted tree structure shown to be current as of May 26, 2014 >> shows what I believe to be numerous errors. As I read it, the tree lists >> CTS6433* as 1.2.2.1.1.1. Okay. Then it places Z78*, CTS1977*, and L1317, >> L1290 (no star) beneath or subsequent to CTS6433*. I know CTS1977 is not >> downstream of CTS6433. Furthermore, the recently recommended to test SNPs >> PF3292 and ZS20 are listed as subsequent or downstream of Z78*. If this is >> accurate than why ask Z78- people to test it. >> Am I reading this numerical tree structure correctly? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wayne R. Roberts [mailto:i.m223.roberts@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:15 AM >> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i >> Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) >> >> Hello Ryan, >> >> Thanks for your posting and you raise some valid questions. However, I'm >> not sure if you follow any of the discussions on the Project's Yahoogroups >> email list or our Facebook page. If not, then you have been missing out. >> >> The Continental 1 and Continental 2a (CTS6433+) sectors of the I-M223 >> Project are the largest sectors in the Project. Quite a few of the members >> did Geno 2.0 when that was released and it was from Geno 2.0 that CTS6433 >> was identified. This SNP linked Cont 1 (Z78+) and Cont2a (Z78-). Other new >> SNPs were revealed from Geno 2.0 and over the past 1-2 years we have been >> trying to place these SNPs into the Haplogroup I tree. Sometimes this can >> only be done through individual SNP testing. In Cont 1 for example we have >> been able to show that Z171 is upstream of Z185, that Z185 is upstream of >> Z180, that Z180 is upstream of L1198 which in turn is upstream of Z166. >> Some of these had been thought to be phyloequivalent and only though >> testing, sometime selective testing, have this been disproved. We now need >> to do the same with Z78 and Z171. >> >> Similarly for Cont2a, new SNPs found in the Geno 2.0 results of one or two >> testers need to be proved derived for others and shown ancestral for >> neighbouring clades. PF3292 and CTS7010 were found derived in one person, >> Winter, who did Geno 2.0. Only with the release of BritainsDNA's Chromo2 >> results earlier this year, was a second though anonymous, person found to >> be PF3292+ but they were CTS7010-. So this revealed that CTS7010 was either >> downstream of PF3292 or a misread by Geno 2.0. We now have both available >> for order at FTDNA but people should test PF3292 first. It is one of the >> SNPs included on the new FTDNA 2014 Haplotree. Please note, that six other >> SNPs placed as downstream of M223 in the new tree are all WRONG. We have >> asked they be removed. Looking at the Project's Y-DNA colorized results >> spreadsheet will show you what Winter's haplotype looks like. Checking the >> SNP page, one can see who has already tested for PF3292 and been found >> ancestral. >> >> CTS5332 was found in the Geno 2.0 results for two testers that joined the >> Project not too long ago. We had them test for or expand their STR markers >> and we have asked FTDNA to add CTS5332 to the order list. Again looking at >> the Project's spreadsheet you can see their haplotypes. >> >> CTS661 was another SNP identified through Geno 2.0. It has been found to >> be the same SNP as L1272. Various members identified by their haplotype >> tested for L1272 and were found derived. Recently CTS661 was added to the >> FTDNA order list. A couple of members have tested for this to show results >> are same as for L1272. Two of these CTS661+/L1272+ members tested with Big >> Y and it has confirmed this result. Further more they were found to be >> ZS20+. >> >> One CTS6433+ member, Hepworth, tested Chromo2 and was found to be ZS20+, >> ZS21+, S8112+ but L1272-. He tested Big Y which confirmed this and two >> others testing Big Y have also shown up the same. So we now know that >> CTS661/L1272 is downstream of ZS20, ZS21 and S8112. We have been waiting 6 >> months for ZS20 to be added to the FTDNA order list. Further new SNPs were >> also identified. >> >> Big Y and Chromo2 have identified another branch of CTS6433 defined by the >> SNPs, S12606, S17264 and S25383 with a sub-branch defined by S25451. >> Pausback,and Myers are on this new branch with Fitzgerald on the >> sub-branch. >> >> Big Y results are still being analysed and they should produce further new >> SNPs for CTS6433+ sectors. The task then will be to have key ones added to >> the FTDNA order list. As slow as things may seem, considerable progress is >> being made in identifying new SNPs and having them recognised both by FTDNA >> and ISOGG. >> >> I note that you have an interesting haplotype with your known terminal SNP >> being L801 (equivalent to Z76, Z183, Z2198, CTS2392) but not on the new >> FTDNA Haplotree. Another one we are working to have FTDNA list on the tree. >> You are predicted CTS6433 but you could be CTS1977 as the diverse >> haplotypes for both branches can be easily confused. Only testing can >> really settle which branch - Cont2a or Cont2b. >> >> I hope this has helped clear up a few things for you. If you have any >> questions, please ask and if any of us volunteers can answer them, we will. >> Wayne. >> >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Holmes, Ryan D. (KSC-SAD20) < >> ryan.d.holmes@nasa.gov> wrote: >> >>> Heard a lot about Big Y results generating new branches in I1. That's >>> cool. It's been dead air on I2. Not sure if that's because of no I2 >>> Big Y results released or no one is as good as Ken at analyzing them. >>> Ken is pretty awesome. Thanks Ken! Then static over the air waves >>> crackled into a scant report of M233 related updates. Scant, because >>> there was little other than 'this group test this snp' to the update. >>> I'd like more understanding about these new SNP's. I've been burned >>> in the past ordering SNP's only to find they're equivalent. The >>> following three SNP's were reported to come out of Geno 2.0 and Big Y, >>> whatever that means, and were recommended to CTS6433 (Cont2a) members: >>> >>> PF3292 >>> CTS7010 >>> CTS5332 (possibly not offered yet by FTDNA, cause they suck) >>> >>> So what's the deal with these SNP's? In the old days, like a year >>> ago, when a new SNP came out this distribution was abuzz with chatter. >>> We need people from CTS6433 to test these, they'd say. Someone from >>> this clade should test first, they'd say. It was all so exciting, I >>> could hardly wait to read the next message. Now I barely get more than >> 'test this.' >>> >>> Who is positive for these SNP's? Who's negative? Who has ordered them? >>> Are there any STR markers that tag these SNPs? >>> >>> Ryan (losing interest fast, someone fan the flames) >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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