Hi, Phil, Thank you for this information. I didn't know that L69 had been removed from trees at FTDNA and ISOGG but consider that decision a mistake since it has already proven its worth in sorting subgroups on the CTS6364 branch and probably has equal potential at other points in the tree where it occurs. Lindsey ******************** Hi Lindsey, I don't know the details of how the yfull tree is assembled, but when I see L69, it's a clue to the confusion. Here are my thoughts on why the yfull tree shows these SNPS as parallel: * If the dataset is limited, some intervening SNPs may be unaccounted for. * L69 has over two dozen known state changes. For some period of time in the past, it derived vs. ancestral state was not clear. Because of its unstable nature, it was removed from the ISOGG and FTDNA trees in 2012. This doesn't mean its not a useful SNP, but rather it was deemed to not comply with the ISOGG Listing Criteria. I think the yfull tree is automated. Perhaps the variability of L69 is causing issues with the logic. For the above and other reasons, I consult various trees online as each is built on different criteria and sometimes with different data. For me, they all helpful in different ways. * Re L22, I suspect the issue is actually CTS10028, which has limited testing data. Re the ISOGG Tree, the Listing Criteria are at http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements13.html. Items 6 and 7 are often hurdles due to limited testing of a SNP. If you would like to see a SNP added to the ISOGG Tree, please email me off list with the necessary details that satisfy the Listing Criteria. Thanks, Phil
I agree. L69+ appears in at least three different places in the Hg I1 tree: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_haplotree.html#tree Who knows where else it will pop up if more people test it? Diana > From: Elizabeth Britton > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Position of M227 in the Tree > > > Hi, Phil, > > Thank you for this information. I didn't know that L69 had been removed from > trees at FTDNA and ISOGG but consider that decision a mistake since it has > already proven its worth in sorting subgroups on the CTS6364 branch and > probably has equal potential at other points in the tree where it occurs. > > Lindsey >