I don't agree that people necessarily want to get the 111 marker test, and one thing I truly value about Family Tree DNA is their honesty. I'm outright discouraging the 111 marker test on my projects. There's not enough known about the results for them to contribute anything but confusion, and most of my project members find the results they've got confusing enough. Dora On 3/21/2012 12:43 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt wrote: > FTDNA should not be demanding customers do the 38-67 panel of STRs before ordering the 68-111 panel of STRs. The latter are much more informative; customers can get much more bang for their buck. > > And of course it goes without saying, various project and other public databases should include space for the 68-111 STRs. > > > > - - - - > Kenneth Nordtvedt > See "Tree for I1" and "Tree and Map for haplogroup I" as well as "I1modalities" at

- - - - Kenneth Nordtvedt See: "Tree for I1" "Tree and Map for haplogroup I" "I1modalities" at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net showing my working tree for YDNA haplogroup I. These files are periodically updated as new information is obtained. -----Original Message----- From: Dora Smith I'm outright discouraging the 111 marker test on my projects. There's not enough known about the results for them to contribute anything but confusion, and most of my project members find the results they've got confusing enough. Dora [[68-111 is much more informative than 38-67; and if the hobby had started over a decade ago with 68-111 instead of 1-67, we'd have about the same discrimination between haplogroups, clades, and branches, etc. For ancient clade identification (before the genealogical era) the 68-111 markers are very helpful. So I really don't understand your confusion, and it’s too bad you discourage 68-111 measurement. KN ]]

The only point against the 68-111 markers panel (but is it against the markers ??) is the absence of many on ysearch database. From: Dora Smith : I'm outright discouraging the 111 marker test on my projects. There's not enough known about the results for them to contribute anything but confusion, and most of my project members find the results they've got confusing enough. Dora Ken wrote : [[68-111 is much more informative than 38-67; and if the hobby had started over a decade ago with 68-111 instead of 1-67, we'd have about the same discrimination between haplogroups, clades, and branches, etc. For ancient clade identification (before the genealogical era) the 68-111 markers are very helpful. So I really don't understand your confusion, and it’s too bad you discourage 68-111 measurement. KN ]]