Meanwhile, M223 SNP's like L801, which has over 60 results from across the board, are not even listed as "under investigation." There really should be more method to this. That's a good way to lose credibility. Aaron Torres From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> Subject: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:26:19 -0700 What’s going on with the I1 tree at this site? A bunch of snps Z61, Z62, Z141 are put in their tree, but I don’t believe FTDNA or anyone else has made them available for public purchase? So we only have reports of 1000 Genomes that they exist and are where suggested? On other hand Z131 which is in the catalog at FTDNA is not in the tree, nor is DF29 (Z131+ has not been found publically). 1000 Genomes reports existence of these snps just as they do the previous mentioned ones. What’s the consistent rule, IF ANY, governing the ISOGG tree construction?

In the case of L801 there may be a reason to hold back the process of renaming P95 until a few other SNPs are tested. I believe 1k gemimes have pointed out some Zs that should be tested. However, ISOGG should at least signal that they've put L801 on hold or something. To state that there is a need for "investigation" would probably be misleading. ;-) I'm more surprised that FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree. Are there some issues with L801 they haven't told us about? H.Styri > From: Aaron Salles Torres [sallfertorr@yahoo.com] > Sent: 2012-02-18 16:04:38 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Cc: ISOGG@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > Meanwhile, M223 SNP's like L801, which has over 60 results from across the board, are not even listed as "under investigation." There really should be more method to this. That's a good way to lose credibility. > > Aaron Torres > > From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> > Subject: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:26:19 -0700 > > What?s going on with the I1 tree at this site? > > A bunch of snps Z61, Z62, Z141 are put in their tree, but I don?t believe FTDNA or anyone else has made them available for public purchase? > > So we only have reports of 1000 Genomes that they exist and are where suggested? > > On other hand Z131 which is in the catalog at FTDNA is not in the tree, nor is DF29 (Z131+ has not been found publically). 1000 Genomes reports existence of these snps just as they do the previous mentioned ones. > > What?s the consistent rule, IF ANY, governing the ISOGG tree construction? > > ------------------------------- > 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

[[ P95+ has been found to be L801+. L801+ is a hugely larger upstream haplogroup which has P95+ as a tiny, tiny subhaplogroup. What's the issue you are talking about? Don't get it? KN ]] -----Original Message----- From: Haakon Styri Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:54 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? In the case of L801 there may be a reason to hold back the process of renaming P95 until a few other SNPs are tested. I believe 1k gemimes have pointed out some Zs that should be tested. However, ISOGG should at least signal that they've put L801 on hold or something. To state that there is a need for "investigation" would probably be misleading. ;-) I'm more surprised that FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree. Are there some issues with L801 they haven't told us about? H.Styri