Unfortunately I meant to say Z131+ as the last word in first from last sentence of my message below. From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:48 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Early Days of I1: DF29 needed A very large fraction of the I1xL22 generics and even several well established clades of I1xL22 are turning out Z58- Z63- Z131- And the elapsed times between founding of all I1, the branch off of I1d L22+ and the divisions of I1xL22 into its z series snps - defined subhaplogroups are rather short (centuries) as estimated by various interclade age estimates. And these various interclade age estimates carry statistical uncertainties too large for us to infer from them some of the time orderings of the earliest nodes in the I1 tree. 1000 Genomes says they found a snp DF29 which happened in this key early era of I1; its use could very well help us sort out the orderings in those earliest years of the I1 tree. But so far FTDNA has not chosen to add DF29 to their catalog. I have suggested they do some a few times; but perhaps requests from the many of you who have turned out both Z58- and Z63- to add DF29 to their catalog offerings of snps might help get the ball rolling? 1000 Genomes also suggests that Z58 and Z63 are downstream from DF29. The Z58- Z63- folks could very well divide into those derived and those ancestral for DF29. And we still do not know if I1d L22+ will turn out DF29 derived or ancestral, although 1000 Genomes suggests derived. And there remains two mysteries concerning the 1000 Genomes suggested I1 tree: 1) They gave no hint in their tree of what has turned out to be a very large Z58- Z63- division of I1xL22 found from FTDNA testing. 2) They claim seeing 3 of their 15 dna samples used for the I1 portion of the tree to be Z131+ But so far the extensive testing at FTDNA has not found a single I1 with Z131- [[Z131+ was meant here]] ? I recommend asking Dr Krahn at FTDNA to add snp DF29 to the catalog. Ken