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 -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Britton Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [yDNAhgI] Position of M227 in Tree Does anyone know why M227 is parallel to L69.1, F3312, CTS8582, and L22 on the Y-Full Tree? http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1a/ What about CTS8582? Has anyone tested positive? Lindsey
FWIW... Based on what data I could dig up (i.e., actual SNP test results), this L69 is downstream of CTS6364 and upstream of M227, not parallel to it: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#L69.1 I've yet to find anyone who's tested CTS8252: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_haplotree.html#tree Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Phillip Goff > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Position of M227 in Tree > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Britton > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [yDNAhgI] Position of M227 in Tree > > > Does anyone know why M227 is parallel to L69.1, F3312, CTS8582, and L22 on > the Y-Full Tree? > > http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1a/ > > What about CTS8582? Has anyone tested positive? > > Lindsey > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message