[[ And there is the giant AS2 clade which seems also to be Z139+ and Z138 status still unknown! Suppose AS2 turns out Z138+? Then people like you and I are Z138+/Z139+ generics not affiliated with any clade, but just known to be descendants of the Z138+ Z139+ founder, whereas we were descendants of the overall I1 founder. By the way; any AS2 out there with Z138 result? I can see only the I1 project member results list by online manipulations. I'm not that interested in definitions per se, but more in understanding the history of the male lines back "then" --- i.e. the temporal as well as logical and geographical structure of the y tree. I think I put it this way several days ago in another post: ".....the I1xL22 generics will probably end up being mainly broken up into a number of separate and smaller generic populations, each tagged a little differently by the new downstream snps and thus necessarily traced back to a more recent founder. With the help of these new snps we may (and it’s only a may) be able to discern connections of some of the generics with known clades, these connections not seen or overlooked based just on looking at the STRs. Ken ]] -----Original Message----- From: Obed W Odom Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:48 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Tree for I1 with new Z snps Ken, are you and I the only generic I1's who have tested positive for Z-138 and Z-139 so far? If these SNP's are ancestral in a significant portion (or would it need to be a majority?) of generic I1's, it seems to me that you and I would by definition no longer be in the generic category, and this would be a case where classification by SNP has trumped classification by STR. On 12/5/2011 10:16 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > That sure is interesting to find another one negative for all three. But > by > itself it is not what makes someone generic or non-generic. "generic" > means > I can't see the person's haplotype as part of a clade. They seem to go > back > to the founder of I1 as their first recognizable common ancestor. But I > notice that in my 68-111 markers collection I have this Bowman in a > cluster > with 25 at 714 and 18 at 650. Those are not rare values, just off modal > one > step. But > I'll keep my eye on the cluster. > > WE're not getting the Z information in very large quantity from FTDNA, > unfortunately. > > Ken ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message