I don't know if I am typical, but I am not spending time these days encouraging people to upgrade to 111 markers for two reasons. One is that there is so much SNP testing to recommend to people that that keeps me busy. Another is that I tend to rely on FTDNA's mutation colorization, and the last time I checked, it was not working for markers 68-111. I believe that is true for both public results pages and GAP results displays. I've been hoping that FTDNA would focus on this once they roll out their 23andMe upload capability. I hope we get some good news coming out of the conference. Kirsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:08:44 PM Subject: [yDNAhgI] 68-111 over the cliff? I have noticed a strong drop in rate of haplogroup I people who are expanding haplotypes to 111 markers? Anybody have any theory why?

FTDNA coloring for what purpose? I could never see any. Given the way we are adding to our snp list, we are far far away from snps being able to replace extended STR haplotypes in learning about the "time" of events in the tree. I hope that is realized in the focus to snps. -----Original Message----- From: dnalister@comcast.net I tend to rely on FTDNA's mutation colorization, and the last time I checked, it was not working for markers 68-111. I believe that is true for both public results pages and GAP results displays. Kirsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> I have noticed a strong drop in rate of haplogroup I people who are expanding haplotypes to 111 markers? Anybody have any theory why?

SNP testing is often unnecessary. STR results are often enough to infer SNPs. I think a drop off in 111 testing is probably due to the state of the economy more than anything else. -- Aaron --- On Tue, 1/11/11, dnalister@comcast.net <dnalister@comcast.net> wrote: > From: dnalister@comcast.net <dnalister@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] 68-111 over the cliff? > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Date: Tuesday, 1 November, 2011, 19:21 > I don't know if I am typical, but I > am not spending time these days encouraging people to > upgrade to 111 markers for two reasons. One is that there is > so much SNP testing to recommend to people that that keeps > me busy. Another is that I tend to rely on FTDNA's mutation > colorization, and the last time I checked, it was not > working for markers 68-111. I believe that is true for both > public results pages and GAP results displays. > > I've been hoping that FTDNA would focus on this once they > roll out their 23andMe upload capability. I hope we get some > good news coming out of the conference. > > Kirsten

In my I2b1 Isles-Scottish McKinstry project, we have found that 67 markers added no further value to 37 markers, as far as learning who is of the same Y DNA lineage or how distant the lines are from each other. In fact, after four McKinstry project members upgraded to 67 markers, one person gained just one more point of difference from the others. My I1-AS generic brother and a nonsurname match are two off at 37 markers and two off at 67 markers. I'd say that Family Tree DNA chose its first 37 markers well, and no further STR testing is necessary. What is more, all of the distant matches I might want to compare people to only tested 37 markers, so more markers don't prove helpful. I've advised my brother, his mystery clone, and my McKinstry project members not to bother upgrading to 111 markers. However my brother and clone will probably order SNP's, for less money, when we have a better idea what SNP's are appropriate, or, better, they are added to the I1 haplotree. The fact that I'm living on $135 a week plus food stamps is why to wait a couple of months on those SNP's and see the number that needs ordering or the cost shrink in the intervening time, not why to not upgrade to 111 markers. If I had money to throw around, I'd rather pay for the testing of representatives of more McKinstry lines who have proven resistant to the idea. Others in my project feel the same way. If it were found that more could be learned from an advanced STR or two that would help me know what SNP's to order, I'd order that marker or two as advanced markers at $7 apiece, not an additional 60 STR's for an extra hundred and something dollars. If they weren't available as advanced markers, I'd just order SNP's since I'd spend maybe half the money in the long run over upgrading to 111 STR's and THEN ordering the SNP's. It is true that in haplogroup I one often knows enough from the STR's, but I still prefer to confirm atleast one or two end SNP's for any particular clade. What is more that's not true in R1b. If we wanted to return to the days of building clades on STR's, there would be no reason to put the energy and money people are doing into researching the SNP's. Yours, Dora Smith -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Hill Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:58 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] 68-111 over the cliff? SNP testing is often unnecessary. STR results are often enough to infer SNPs. I think a drop off in 111 testing is probably due to the state of the economy more than anything else. -- Aaron --- On Tue, 1/11/11, dnalister@comcast.net <dnalister@comcast.net> wrote: > From: dnalister@comcast.net <dnalister@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] 68-111 over the cliff? > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Date: Tuesday, 1 November, 2011, 19:21 > I don't know if I am typical, but I > am not spending time these days encouraging people to > upgrade to 111 markers for two reasons. One is that there is > so much SNP testing to recommend to people that that keeps > me busy. Another is that I tend to rely on FTDNA's mutation > colorization, and the last time I checked, it was not > working for markers 68-111. I believe that is true for both > public results pages and GAP results displays. > > > Kirsten