182783 is not a SPRINGER, at least not on paper as far back as I have been shown. This group of SPRINGERs also have one or two KELL(E)Ys at the 67 marker level. This group of SPRINGERs is tied together by their Y DNA, most of them are out to 67, and I tested a rep from each basic branch for P109 just to make sure they probably all were. There are at least 4 'branches' if you are looking at paper, but none of those 'branches' can be tied together via paper trails, we used the Y DNA to cinch them together. Each group goes back at least to the mid 1700s; one back to about 1700 NJ, one to c1730 NY, one to1760s SC, one at least by 1766 soNY/noNJ. Those are the main sub-groups within this P109 group. Some chance they go back to a Dennis Springer d.CT 1703 m.CT c1667 Mary Hudson. Lots of early Dennis Springers in these groups, plus several Hudson Springers... only no one can prove a paper trail to this couple. Every time I'd get them all upgraded I would hope the results would show some pattern. I did get a few STR patterns to show up within known cousins (3rd in one case). If everyone in this group descends from the Dennis and Mary of CT, then we would all have to be about 8th or 9th cousins (or even 10th?). I don't know if upgrading to 111, even for 2 or 3 of them would show anything for that closely related of a group. If I had the funds I know what I would do, a 68-111 upgrade for each of the ones I did the P109 on, and then a scattering of FF tests, maybe 2 from each of the 4 sub-groups. I'm too old to find a Sugar Daddy. So, with that 'young' of a group, early 1700s, second half of the 1600s at the earliest (IMO), are there any odds for finding additional STRs that would separate them? melissa On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Melissa,  It is not totally clear what you would be looking for with your > extension to 111 markers within such a tight surname cluster.  I assume the > unnamed 182783 is another Springer, but maybe not?  P109+ has no > distinquishing clade marker values which make it distinct from basic L22+ > I1-N  It is amazing.  I think P109+ must have occurred extremely soon after > the L22+ happened. > > If your Dad upgraded you would get a slightly more accurate representation > of the 68-111 markers for the Springer MRCA.  I would expect a difference or > two among the 68-111.  But then you'd probably want a third to break the 1/1 > deadlocks on the differing values. > > Do you know by paper how young is your Springer cluster?  It looks extremely > young. > > Ken > > > > - - - - > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > See: > "Tree for I1" > "Tree and Map for haplogroup I" > "The 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: M Robards > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:02 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: [yDNAhgI] 68-111 Markers P109 was Re: A pitch for the 68-111 > STRmarkers > > Ken, I have been putting off upgrading my dad's Y 67 out to 111.  I > kept finding other ways to spend the money I already don't have, > mainly FF tests for several of my own family. > > If you could take a look at the Y STR chart for the 'Dennis' group in > the SPRINGER project, we have quite a few participants in this group. > Reason being we were trying to ID family lines, and we did to a small > degree.  I have put a matching non-Springer in the chart just so you > can compare, they have gone out to 111 and are also P109. > > There is no FF match between 182783 and the only other 2 in this group > who have done the FF.  I'm only mentioning this as a minor detail. > > So do you mean that you are finding sub-clades in I1 by comparing > these 111 upgrades. > > If I were to upgrade my dad 24291 to 111 from 67, with only two in > this group then up to 111, would that show anything?  If they don't > match 100% in this panel, or do, I don't see how that would tell me > anything, without getting at least one each from each of the family > groups within this group.  There is no way I can upgrade any of the > others in the group, and no one else really shows an interest.  And > since 182783's paper trail indicates a different origin, I'm trying to > find the justification to spend the money :(  SS only goes so far, but > I feel if I don't do this, no one else will either.  I just need > something to push me over the edge. > > melissa springer robards > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kenneth Nordtvedt > <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > snip >> Presently I am trying to keep complete a full database of all 68-111 >> haplotype extensions reported out within haplogroup I.  And then I use >> that database to detect any new clade structure in haplogroup I. >> So I recommend buying this panel if you are in haplogroup I; your >> information will not go to waste.  And it would help if you suggested to >> FTDNA to treat this panel better with regard to Ysearch and its >> restrictions on purchase. >> >> - - - - >> Kenneth Nordtvedt > snip > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Melissa, Probably, but maybe not. You can't know until you test. If you would like an idea of what you might expect when testing many members of the same family to 111 markers, you can take a look at my STRAUB family: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Straub/StraubDNA-results-HgI1-AS5.html#data We did not get the results I had hoped for, that is, "branch markers" that would identify major branches of the family, such as we did get in my AS2 CORBIN family - and with only 37 markers (please scroll to far right to view how the mutations jibe with the paper genealogy): http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Corbin/CorbinDNA-results-HgI1.html#AS2 And then there's my CARRICO family: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Carrico/CarricoDNA-results-HgJ2a4b.html#data With the low variability in both Panels 4 and 5, I doubt if I'll be able to talk anyone else into upgrading. Like gambling, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Diana > From: M Robards > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:32 PM > <snip> > > So, with that 'young' of a group, early 1700s, second half > of the 1600s at the earliest (IMO), are there any odds for > finding additional STRs that would separate them? > > melissa