Thank you, Wayne, for the detailed response. I like this y-dna forum. I prefer it actually, although, for a long time, I've had the feeling that M223 members have dropped off of it for some reason. That's unfortunate. I have been monitoring the yahoo group's topics. I would join the group if yahoo could figure out how to create my profile. Sadly, numerous attempts to do this have resulted in failure. I recently joined the facebook group. My request was approved right away. Unfortunately, I find little new information in either. The facebook group has a lot of photos posted, most are of Ken's tree structure and are quite outdated. I did see a yahoo topic entitled CTS6433 where you briefly discuss ZS20. If more information is there, I can't find it. Where is the tree that shows all these SNPs with all the new branches you mention? A tree like Ken's I1 tree would certainly be easier to explain than the hard to follow discussion you posted. Thank you for taking the time to look at my haplotype. Instead of testing for CTS6433, Aaron suggested I could test the STR marker that splits L801 into CTS6433 and CTS1977. I chose this option as it was cheaper. I will utilize the spreadsheets to determine who is positive for PF3292 and check their distance against my haplotype. I should have realized that on my own. I am fortunate to be listed next to Thomas Humes' haplotype, who tested all the older branches beneath CTS6433. Without his efforts, I would know a lot less or have shelled out a lot more. Time I return the favor. The question remains: how do I get the most information for my money. I may wait until this Geno 2.0 update comes out. Lastly, I'd like to thank all the volunteers doing the heavy lifting in all of Haplogroup I. Your dedication is instrumental to this research. As is the many forerunners spending money on the latest products to the benefit of the rest of us. -----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.

Yes, too conservative--entropy seems to be taking hold at FTDNA. Two weeks or more ago, I asked why one of my R1bs--WAMH had been moved to I-P37--no answer yet except that FTDNA is still working on the problem and priority has been given to solving those problems which affect the greatest number of people. Must be many, many problems. Meanwhile, for the past several days--at least since Wednesday--every time I try to look at the Members Information page in my project, I get the message--"uh-oh--Houston, we have a problem." I finally wrote yesterday to complain. Who knows what else has happened that I cannot see? Lindsey ******************** So maybe my earthquake alarm was too conservative? Perhaps invasion by hostile aliens? It even made my PC get tied up in knots as I hit keys too fast in my anger. Kenneth Nordtvedt ******************** Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one list to another. Lawrence Mayka

No matter how ill-advised the NV "intellectual construct" was, they used it for several months in the data they have put out. It is sabotage to change it now and then again and again and ....... in the future. It destroys peoples' spreadsheets used for making sense of the downstream tree. Perhaps they could change the name to X file but leave the assignment rules unaltered so we could efficiently compare apples to apples to apples....... Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Charles Thornton but the lat[t]er is an intellectual construct that is designed to change. ------------------------------- 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

What's the bottom line issue? Do you doubt you are I1? I am not going to chase every screw up FTDNA makes. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Carl Sheffield Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] L41 Ken, In January 2013 you had a dialog with Obed Odom about no-calls of L41 among I1 members but not I2 members. FTDNA's new tree moves L41 from the I stem to the I2 stem. If you look at my BigY results, I am positive for the I1 branch and for L41. Is this a clue that proves the FTDNA tree is wrong or does it mean something else? I am also positive for L104, deep inside of I2, but negative for everything between L41 and L104. I interpret L104+ as a private mutation in my line which just happens to match the I2 L104. Can you think of other explanations? Carl Sheffield Kit #123861 ------------------------------- 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 am not sure how FTDNA can reverse the mess this is causing. Perhaps they can reset their systems to what they were saved as backup some 24, 48 hours ago. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Lawrence Mayka <lmayka@ameritech.net> wrote: > Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one > list to another. > > One Big Y result in my project was re-released today. The previous results, > including a classification of Q-Z780 (or equivalently Q-CTS1780), looked > complete and consistent with themselves, with 25 STRs, and with a backbone > result of P36+, even though unusual for my project. (I suspected that > someone was fibbing on the adoption papers.) > > The new classification is R-Z367. But more importantly, the new Big Y > results look incomplete and inconsistent with themselves, and certainly > totally inconsistent with STRs and the backbone test. Although Z367 is a > subclade of R-L2, he did not test positive for any of L2, U152, P312, P310, > L11, L51, L23, M269, P297, P25, M343, or M207. > > In another project I co-administer, one of the re-released Big Y results > looks incomplete. The previous results included CTS1211+ and CTS3402+ as > expected from 67 STRs, whereas the new results omit both of those and > classify him merely as R-Z280. > > From: "Wayne R. Roberts" <i.m223.roberts@gmail.com> > I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received > Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On > look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have > been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium > confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA. > > > ------------------------------- > 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've read several articles on the 6th Great Extinction and agree with you. I thought Rare Earth was a great book on the subject of extinctions. Carol Yocom PS I keep an eye out for Z63 (Fonteyn) topics in the list, but for the most part, I absolutely have no idea what is going on. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Some scientists of the bio crowd are calling what’s going on today as the > “6th Great Extinction”. Is no one going to stand up for extinctions? I > have done some mathematical studies of extinctions in y lines, so I’ve come > to sort of a fondness for them. Like individual animals’ deaths, > extinctions make room for new life and critters. Actually, the human > species would arguably not have come into existence without the first 5 > great extinctions. Starting with the mosquito and Caribbean beach sand > flies and “no nos” as they call them in the South Pacific, I can think of > some extinctions which would be fine with me. > > > > 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 -- Oh my heck!

Some scientists of the bio crowd are calling what’s going on today as the “6th Great Extinction”. Is no one going to stand up for extinctions? I have done some mathematical studies of extinctions in y lines, so I’ve come to sort of a fondness for them. Like individual animals’ deaths, extinctions make room for new life and critters. Actually, the human species would arguably not have come into existence without the first 5 great extinctions. Starting with the mosquito and Caribbean beach sand flies and “no nos” as they call them in the South Pacific, I can think of some extinctions which would be fine with me. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

Weldon, Unfortunately this is FTDNA technical (IT) department fucking around with data. Here are some of the SNPs posted for Braz Z161+, Z162+, Z163+, Z164+, Z165+, Z166+, Z168+, Z170+, Z171+, Z172+, Z174+, Z175+, Z176+, Z177+, Z178+, Z179+, Z180+, Z181+, Z183+, Z184+, Z185+, Z186+, Z187+, Z188+, Z77+, YSC0000207+, YSC0000227+, YSC0000256+, YSC0000272+, F719+, L104+, L132+, Z163+, Z164+, Z165+, Z168+, Z170+, Z174+, Z175+, Z184+, Z185+, Z188+, Z178+, Z179-, Z180-, Z190-, Z63-, Z79-, Z176-, Z166-, L137-, L126-, Z161-, PF3292-, F3878-, F3406-, F3195-, M214-, Z190-, PF4225-, PF6896-, PF6899-, PF6902-, P78-, P95-, L702-, DF5-, CTS7865-, CTS1858-, CTS1977- As you can see he is reported as both Z161+, Z161-, Z166+, Z166-, Z180+, Z180-, Z179+, Z179- and he tested for L1198 back in 2012 but a result now does not even appear. This only happen when the introduced their new Haplotree and did a clean up Geno 2.0 results. Seems conflict appears when one has tested both Geno 2.0 and Big Y as in Braz's case. Big Y seems to misread various SNPs and cannot read indels correctly. We have seen the FTDNA clean up wipe out not only SNPs but also Order History for SNPs. One really starts to lose confidence in that company with so many IT stuff ups. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Weldon Smith <e2weldon@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Wayne, > > I find the following listed as L1198+ and Z180-: > > 127052 McCall > 260237 Braz > N18172 Fleet > 289551 Goeke > 173448 Norris > > Weldon > > On 5/29/14, 3:14 PM, y-dna-haplogroup-i-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > Subject: > > Re: [yDNAhgI] Three new SNP's for CTS6433 (Cont2a) (Wayne R. Roberts) > > From: > > "Wayne R. Roberts" <i.m223.roberts@gmail.com> > > Date: > > 5/29/14, 3:09 PM > > > > To: > > y-dna-haplogroup-i <y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com> > > > > > > Good morning Weldon. > > > > Could you let me know what entries in the spreadsheet show L1198+ and > > Z180-, thanks. > > > > Smeaton is the member that tested Z180+ and L1198- thus showing Z180 is > > upstream of L1198. BTW, Geno 2.0 did not include L1198 and unless people > > have tested for L1198, they will only show Z171, Z185, Z180, Z166, Z187, > > Z190 depending on which were derived. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > To contact the Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I list administrator, send an email to > > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > To post a message to the Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I mailing list, send an email > to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I@rootsweb.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 > > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Kenneth, I saw your message just after I finished posting mine. And regretably, I do not see any FGC, S or Y series in the positives for Known SNPs, so where have all those Novel Variants gone? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Did you see my just released message? I noticed same thing in I1. I have > put new and old version of someone's NVs side by side, and using some > criterion they have stripped out a large fraction of the old NVs and I > assume have them showing up in some other file. So far I have seen no new > alleged NV in the new version which was not there in the old version. So > are we going to have to learn all the thousands of new names given to new > snps by approximately a dozen different snp naming agencies? I'm about > ready to drop out of this group hobby because of ftdna and just finish the > work on my own two grandfather lines. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne R. Roberts > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:16 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i ; genealogy-dna > Subject: [yDNAhgI] Beware - BIG Y results being altered > > I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received > Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On > look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have > been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium > confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

On 30/05/2014 8:41 AM, Wayne R. Roberts wrote: > Kenneth, > > Anthony in I-M223 has had his Novel Variants go from 240 down to just 3, Da > Silva from 269 to 68, Styri from 245 to 134 and Elders from 220 to 59. > I have just posted the following on the ftDNA FB page - let's see if they respond T "I have seen several comments from Project leaders on chatgroups / forums that there has been an overnight massive change in people with known Big Y's data - one person has had his novel variants drop from 240 to 3, another from 220 to 59. There are some very frustrated and cranky group leaders and researchers out there and one of the biggest gripes is a lack of answers as to how and why this has happened. These people had spent hours/days/weeks working through massive spreadsheets and overnight things had disappeared or was re-named. Some very senior researchers are threatening to walk away from the projects which would be a tragedy for those of us who struggle to understand the science. Can anyone respond in this public forum ?"

Opps I made an error Anthony went from 240 to 82 On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Wayne R. Roberts <i.m223.roberts@gmail.com> wrote: > Kenneth, > > Anthony in I-M223 has had his Novel Variants go from 240 down to just 3, > Da Silva from 269 to 68, Styri from 245 to 134 and Elders from 220 to 59. > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net > > wrote: > >> It seems ftdna has begun to screw up (I mean change some apples into >> oranges or broccoli) their BigY data presentation. A few people who had >> BigY results released months ago, each with about 300 novel variants or so, >> just had their BigY results “released” again today. But now, on rerelease, >> they only show about 110 “novel variants” each. I would guess, although >> have not checked yet, that 2/3 of their old “novel variants” have been >> moved into their “known snps” files because someone somewhere has given >> these NVs names. >> >> This makes it extremely inefficient to now compare BigY results for >> peoples’ results of before and of after this change. Or alternatively, any >> research spreadsheets developed with the old categorization will have to >> some how have to be altered to take into account that about 2/3 the NVs now >> are in a different collection. ftdna said they would discuss this with us >> before doing this, but apparently they forgot to do so. >> >> I wrote the new head technical fellow at ftdna months ago pointing out >> what a mess just such a move would produce. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > >

Kenneth, Anthony in I-M223 has had his Novel Variants go from 240 down to just 3, Da Silva from 269 to 68, Styri from 245 to 134 and Elders from 220 to 59. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > It seems ftdna has begun to screw up (I mean change some apples into > oranges or broccoli) their BigY data presentation. A few people who had > BigY results released months ago, each with about 300 novel variants or so, > just had their BigY results “released” again today. But now, on rerelease, > they only show about 110 “novel variants” each. I would guess, although > have not checked yet, that 2/3 of their old “novel variants” have been > moved into their “known snps” files because someone somewhere has given > these NVs names. > > This makes it extremely inefficient to now compare BigY results for > peoples’ results of before and of after this change. Or alternatively, any > research spreadsheets developed with the old categorization will have to > some how have to be altered to take into account that about 2/3 the NVs now > are in a different collection. ftdna said they would discuss this with us > before doing this, but apparently they forgot to do so. > > I wrote the new head technical fellow at ftdna months ago pointing out > what a mess just such a move would produce. > > > > > > 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

I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA.

Good morning Weldon. Could you let me know what entries in the spreadsheet show L1198+ and Z180-, thanks. Smeaton is the member that tested Z180+ and L1198- thus showing Z180 is upstream of L1198. BTW, Geno 2.0 did not include L1198 and unless people have tested for L1198, they will only show Z171, Z185, Z180, Z166, Z187, Z190 depending on which were derived. Wayne On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Weldon Smith <e2weldon@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Wayne, > > You just posted that Z180 was upstream from L1198, but I see several > entries in the M223 spreadheet that show L1198+ and Z180-. > Is the Cont1 sequence perhaps ...Z185->L1198->Z180->Z166...? > > Weldon Smith > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Guys, It would not have been a mess if FTDNA was providing the results in a consistent way. Although not optimum, the VCF files had the merit to contain all results. ... and who cared if they were called "novel" or "known" ... this was just a relative concept that was deemed to be obsolete the second after it was published. But for some reason they stopped providing it and replaced it by a tasteless list file. Mvh/Regards Nicolas Taban -------- Original message -------- From: Thinus van Rensburg <tvren@ozemail.com.au> Date:30/05/2014 00:54 (GMT+01:00) To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Another ftdna data change nightmare begins On 30/05/2014 8:41 AM, Wayne R. Roberts wrote: > Kenneth, > > Anthony in I-M223 has had his Novel Variants go from 240 down to just 3, Da > Silva from 269 to 68, Styri from 245 to 134 and Elders from 220 to 59. > I have just posted the following on the ftDNA FB page - let's see if they respond T "I have seen several comments from Project leaders on chatgroups / forums that there has been an overnight massive change in people with known Big Y's data - one person has had his novel variants drop from 240 to 3, another from 220 to 59. There are some very frustrated and cranky group leaders and researchers out there and one of the biggest gripes is a lack of answers as to how and why this has happened. These people had spent hours/days/weeks working through massive spreadsheets and overnight things had disappeared or was re-named. Some very senior researchers are threatening to walk away from the projects which would be a tragedy for those of us who struggle to understand the science. Can anyone respond in this public forum ?" ------------------------------- 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 Novel Variants file hasn¹t changed yet, but again, that file was not an authorized FTDNA download - it was a file grab through the BigY Add-on via Google Chrome that was put out by Felix. If your Novel Variants file has changed, my question is has your VCF-file changed too? If is has, then they are changing their software pipeline (not the SNP calling component, but the HTS-alignment/read component); if it hasn¹t, then they are simply building the P109 tree and removing upstream SNPs and Felix¹s file grab is reflecting that. One would expect the VCF-file to be static, but the Novel Variants file to change; the former is an industry standard format output file that shouldn¹t change because the calls are relative to the reference sequence (which hasn¹t changed recently), but the later is an intellectual construct that is designed to change.

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 >

Hi I have the same experience, with L104, and I'm I1 (and Yfull has given me a new clade I-Y3601. I can't find L104 in my Yfull documentation, might wonder how FTDNA can find it but not Yfull. L41 seems to be found in almost all samples under I1 (Yfull group I1-L22) Mats ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sheffield" <clsheff3@comcast.net> To: <y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:31 PM Subject: [yDNAhgI] L41 > Ken, > > In January 2013 you had a dialog with Obed Odom about no-calls of L41 > among > I1 members but not I2 members. FTDNA's new tree moves L41 from the I > stem > to the I2 stem. If you look at my BigY results, I am positive for the I1 > branch and for L41. Is this a clue that proves the FTDNA tree is wrong or > does it mean something else? I am also positive for L104, deep inside of > I2, but negative for everything between L41 and L104. I interpret L104+ > as > a private mutation in my line which just happens to match the I2 L104. > Can > you think of other explanations? > > Carl Sheffield > Kit #123861 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Carl, Peculiarly I also happen to ne L104+ according to FTDNA. Still I am a P109 ... ie deep in I1. I am not sure if this SNP is reliable. Mvh/Regards Nicolas Taban -------- Original message -------- From: Carl Sheffield <clsheff3@comcast.net> Date:29/05/2014 22:34 (GMT+01:00) To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: [yDNAhgI] L41 Ken, In January 2013 you had a dialog with Obed Odom about no-calls of L41 among I1 members but not I2 members. FTDNA's new tree moves L41 from the I stem to the I2 stem. If you look at my BigY results, I am positive for the I1 branch and for L41. Is this a clue that proves the FTDNA tree is wrong or does it mean something else? I am also positive for L104, deep inside of I2, but negative for everything between L41 and L104. I interpret L104+ as a private mutation in my line which just happens to match the I2 L104. Can you think of other explanations? Carl Sheffield Kit #123861 ------------------------------- 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

Whatever's going on is much worse than a mere shifting of variants from one list to another. One Big Y result in my project was re-released today. The previous results, including a classification of Q-Z780 (or equivalently Q-CTS1780), looked complete and consistent with themselves, with 25 STRs, and with a backbone result of P36+, even though unusual for my project. (I suspected that someone was fibbing on the adoption papers.) The new classification is R-Z367. But more importantly, the new Big Y results look incomplete and inconsistent with themselves, and certainly totally inconsistent with STRs and the backbone test. Although Z367 is a subclade of R-L2, he did not test positive for any of L2, U152, P312, P310, L11, L51, L23, M269, P297, P25, M343, or M207. In another project I co-administer, one of the re-released Big Y results looks incomplete. The previous results included CTS1211+ and CTS3402+ as expected from 67 STRs, whereas the new results omit both of those and classify him merely as R-Z280. From: "Wayne R. Roberts" <i.m223.roberts@gmail.com> I have just seen four members of the I-M223 Project appear in the Received Results list Big Y results. All four have previously received results. On look at their Big Y results, I see the number of their Novel Variants have been reduced by over half, in the case of one member his High and Medium confidence Novels have gone from 269 down to 68. WTF is going on at FTDNA.