I see several CTS6364+ L69+ results who are also CTS10028-. If M227 is in fact downstream of L69 as suggested by a previous thread, then M227 should be CTS10028-. I believe CTS10028/Z2337 would then be positioned CTS6364/Z2336 and L22. If I recall correctly, there is a CTS10028+ and L22- sample which would show that the two are not phyloequivalent. Now if we could get more info on CTS11651/Z2338 which, as far as I'm aware, appears phyloequivalent to L22.

I have only one CTS11651 result within L22+, and it is far downstream, being a uN L813+ person. Do you know of any further upstream cases of CTS11651 test? I don't see why it is necessarily phyloequivalent to L22 at this early point. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Peterson, Phillip R. Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] M227 and L69 & CTS10028. I see several CTS6364+ L69+ results who are also CTS10028-. If M227 is in fact downstream of L69 as suggested by a previous thread, then M227 should be CTS10028-. I believe CTS10028/Z2337 would then be positioned CTS6364/Z2336 and L22. If I recall correctly, there is a CTS10028+ and L22- sample which would show that the two are not phyloequivalent. Now if we could get more info on CTS11651/Z2338 which, as far as I'm aware, appears phyloequivalent to L22. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message