Using ISOGG haplogroup names the P95 haplogroup needs to be renamed because it's a subhaplogroup of L801. Not a big issue, really. If there are any issues regarding L801 I don't know about them, but FTDNA haven't adjusted their draft tree to display P95 as a subhaplogroup of L801. That makes me ask: are there any issues? Why is FTDNA delaying a simple update of the draft tree? H.Styri > From: Kenneth Nordtvedt [knordtvedt@bresnan.net] > Sent: 2012-02-18 18:07:30 MET > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] ISOGG "I1" tree? > > [[ 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 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >