Dear All As a follow up to adding surnames/geographic origins to SNP clusters for the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project, I thought I would make some genetic distance comparisons over 67 and 111 markers between kit 64529 who is at the tip of a branch (L803+, L802+), and others in the Project (in blue text) on different SNP branches downstream of Z58, and also those on the Z63 branch. The tree with GD comparisons can be viewed here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32097634/I1-%20Z58%2B%20%26%20Z63%2B%20Project%20-%20SNP%20Tree%20GD%20Comparisons.pdf I’m still trying to process what I am seeing but if anyone has the time, I would appreciate some comment. I’ve put GD ranges for the longer lists. I was surprised that 64529 (outside of his own L803 cluster) had closer comparisons with the Z63+ column than with any on the Z58+ subgroups. As I understand it, the interclade node age of Z58 and Z63 is estimated to be 4,150 years (if that is still current). I’ve always checked YSearch to see who 64529 matches outside of the FTDNA threshold (for historical research purposes) and matches such as 67-13 – 67-18 are always considered for further exploration. Looking now at these Z58 and Z63 branches, I can see 64529 has matches of equal GD on both the Z58 and Z63 branches. If I didn’t now know 64529’s correct SNP branch, then these other ‘close’ matches would all be red herrings. I suppose this is telling me that possibly a large percentage of seemingly close matches at YSearch etc. are simply coincidences due to convergence. The flip side would then seem to be that some of those at a greater GD but with whom 64529 shares a series of SNPs, may actually be much more closely related than they seem. I’m still thinking this through but worried about the extent - how confident can we really be that a close match is really that, if we don’t personally test SNPs ourselves to ensure convergence is not an issue with our haplotypes? I may be worrying unnecessarily, so if anyone can help me understand a little better, I would sincerely appreciate it. Kindest regards Julie Frame Falk

I noticed in your new project database there is a large number of haplotypes with M253>df29>.................. But DF29 is not in FTDNA catalog for sale (as of hour ago). So how do you know they are DF29+? Presumption? Probably if you are going to add all that preamble to all the haplotypes, you should use red and green or something similar to separate "tested" from "presumed"? -----Original Message----- From: Julie Frame Falk Dear All As a follow up to adding surnames/geographic origins to SNP clusters for the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project, I thought I would make some genetic distance comparisons over 67 and 111 markers between kit 64529 who is at the tip of a branch (L803+, L802+), and others in the Project (in blue text) on different SNP branches downstream of Z58, and also those on the Z63 branch. The tree with GD comparisons can be viewed here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32097634/I1-%20Z58%2B%20%26%20Z63%2B%20Project%20-%20SNP%20Tree%20GD%20Comparisons.pdf I’m still trying to process what I am seeing but if anyone has the time, I would appreciate some comment. I’ve put GD ranges for the longer lists. I was surprised that 64529 (outside of his own L803 cluster) had closer comparisons with the Z63+ column than with any on the Z58+ subgroups. As I understand it, the interclade node age of Z58 and Z63 is estimated to be 4,150 years (if that is still current). I’ve always checked YSearch to see who 64529 matches outside of the FTDNA threshold (for historical research purposes) and matches such as 67-13 – 67-18 are always considered for further exploration. Looking now at these Z58 and Z63 branches, I can see 64529 has matches of equal GD on both the Z58 and Z63 branches. If I didn’t now know 64529’s correct SNP branch, then these other ‘close’ matches would all be red herrings. I suppose this is telling me that possibly a large percentage of seemingly close matches at YSearch etc. are simply coincidences due to convergence. The flip side would then seem to be that some of those at a greater GD but with whom 64529 shares a series of SNPs, may actually be much more closely related than they seem. I’m still thinking this through but worried about the extent - how confident can we really be that a close match is really that, if we don’t personally test SNPs ourselves to ensure convergence is not an issue with our haplotypes? I may be worrying unnecessarily, so if anyone can help me understand a little better, I would sincerely appreciate it. Kindest regards Julie Frame Falk ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Julie, Do you have a virus on your computer? My cousin, who is the participant for the dna testing, has just notified me that he's getting a lot of emails from FTDNA. Apparently they're saying "Dear Julie". Marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Frame Falk" <jdf4072@gmail.com> To: <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>; "Y-DNA Haplogroup I" <y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 7:51 AM Subject: [yDNAhgI] GD Comparisons between SNP groups > Dear All > > As a follow up to adding surnames/geographic origins to SNP clusters for > the I1>Z58+ and I1>Z63+ Project, I thought I would make some genetic > distance comparisons over 67 and 111 markers between kit 64529 who is at > the tip of a branch (L803+, L802+), and others in the Project (in blue > text) on different SNP branches downstream of Z58, and also those on the > Z63 branch. The tree with GD comparisons can be viewed here: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32097634/I1-%20Z58%2B%20%26%20Z63%2B%20Project%20-%20SNP%20Tree%20GD%20Comparisons.pdf > > I’m still trying to process what I am seeing but if anyone has the time, I > would appreciate some comment. I’ve put GD ranges for the longer lists. > I was surprised that 64529 (outside of his own L803 cluster) had closer > comparisons with the Z63+ column than with any on the Z58+ subgroups. As I > understand it, the interclade node age of Z58 and Z63 is estimated to be > 4,150 years (if that is still current). I’ve always checked YSearch to > see who 64529 matches outside of the FTDNA threshold (for historical > research purposes) and matches such as 67-13 – 67-18 are always considered > for further exploration. Looking now at these Z58 and Z63 branches, I can > see 64529 has matches of equal GD on both the Z58 and Z63 branches. If I > didn’t now know 64529’s correct SNP branch, then these other ‘close’ > matches would all be red herrings. I suppose this is telling me that > possibly a large percentage of seemingly close matches at YSearch etc. are > simply coincidences due to convergence. The flip side would then seem to > be that some of those at a greater GD but with whom 64529 shares a series > of SNPs, may actually be much more closely related than they seem. I’m > still thinking this through but worried about the extent - how confident > can we really be that a close match is really that, if we don’t personally > test SNPs ourselves to ensure convergence is not an issue with our > haplotypes? I may be worrying unnecessarily, so if anyone can help me > understand a little better, I would sincerely appreciate it. > > Kindest regards > Julie Frame Falk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Marilyn <<Julie, Do you have a virus on your computer? My cousin, who is the participant for the dna testing, has just notified me that he's getting a lot of emails from FTDNA. Apparently they're saying "Dear Julie">> I surely hope not, Marilyn - it's a fairly new computer and virus detection is not picking up anything. Marilyn, if your cousin recently joined our new I1>Z58 and I1>Z63 Project at FTDNA, we automatically add new participants to our private Mailing List. This is explained on our website and also when they receive a confirmation from Yahoo that they have been added. There is also a link to opt out (unsubscribe) if they wish. We've found this works better than sending invitations which some folk either get confused with, or don't like filling in a Yahoo profile. Via our Mailing List, your cousin will very likely find he receives emails that are addressed to 'Dear Julie', and also to other folk, as the case may be. Posts and Replies go to all members. I suspect this may be what he is receiving. I've not had anyone else say they suspect a virus and a large volume of email is dealt with daily. I will run another check using a different anti-virus program just to be sure, though! Kindest regards Julie