Hi Diana Thanks for the clarification. Yes the match is distant but it is what we expected, also the uncommon surname helps somewhat. Yes we are in touch with the Medley project at FTDNA, and have a good match with a number of people there. We also have a Medley DNA group at Ancestry ,along with a Medley-DNA mailing list.. I spoke before that the Medleys from Maryland who claimed to be related to my Yorkshire Medleys were no DNA match, I forgot to mention that they were a totally different Haplogroup! Regards Steve At 11:09 PM 14/06/2010, you wrote: >Hello Steve, > >I thought it might be a typo, but the real number could have been >30, 33, or 37, >so I had to ask! > >The Ancestry test is actually only 30 markers (and their 46 marker test is >actually only 43 markers). Ancestry includes 19b, 464e, and 464f in their >count, which are markers almost no one has. If you have them, FTDNA will test >them without charge, so by Ancestry's reckoning, FTDNA tests 40 and >70 markers, >not just 37 and 67. I mention this because it affects what you're telling me >about your match with Peter. > >If you had tested 33 markers, and you only matched Peter 27/33, it would >indicate you're most likely not related to him in genealogical time. The fact >that you match 27/30 does allow that you could be related in >genealogical time, >though it is not a close match. > >Are you in contact with the admin of the MEDLEY project at >FTDNA? Do you have a >Medley Group at Ancestry? While it's great to have your own web >site -- I have >ones for my projects -- you also need the benefit of having a group/project at >your testing lab's web site, so people can easily find it. > >Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:35 AM > > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > > > Hi Diana > > Sorry about the confusion my poor typing skills were to blame, it > > should be 33 not 31! > > The tests were done through Ancestry. > > Steve > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley > > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:56 PM > > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > > > Hi Everyone, > > My names is Steve Medley, last year I had a 31 Marker test done > > along with a suspected extremely distant relative, Peter, who had a > > know variation of the family name, and to our great delight we had a > > match at 27 markers ( not too bad considering it was around 700 years > > since the last common ancestro,.We can trace our family tree back to > > the Early Norman era.) > > Our Haploroup is I2b1a, and as Peter had a larger numbers of markers > > done it indicates we are members of the M284 Subclade. We have our > > own DNA site with 30 members ( but only 5 sets of DNA) and I would > > happily welcome anyone who wished to join. > > > > It has been suggested that the John Medley that went to Maryland in > > 1635 was related to our branch of the family in Elland in Yorkshire , > > however sadly we are unable to find any member of that family with > > matching DNA. > > If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can further our research , > > or any ideas to further our cause it would be apprected. > > Regards > > Steve Medley > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have another reason - religious objections. Some people will object to testing because it is based on a scientific theory that contradicts their interpretations of religious scriptures. I'm not really sure, but I think this may be what a cousin of mine was referring to yesterday when he talked about "his beliefs" as a reason for declining to test. :-( I decided not to press the issue, since it was pretty clear that the answer for that day was no, and I think it will remain no, but I can hope that he will change his mind, and I think people are more likely to change their mind when given some time and space to reflect than when they are hounded. If I succeed in getting this line tested, it may be through some other relative. In this case, the other possible testers are closely related to him, so I probably would not be helping my case by coming on too strong with him, and I don't think that would be the right way to treat him anyway. I was disappointed at the outcome in this case, because when I talked to him once before, I thought he sounded willing. Sometimes I like to mention what is for many genealogists a fringe benefit of testing, learning about the ancient history of one's line. Some people won't consider that a benefit. Kirsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Taylor" <rt-sails@comcast.net> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:47:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Reasons for not testing Thank you, Diana, for cataloguing (in the "Roll Call" thread) four reasons for people not getting genetic genealogy tests. It's an important topic. In sales terms, we'd call these objections to be overcome. 1. COST: The economy's had an effect. However, even before it turned awful, I was hearing from folks who "couldn't afford" a few dollars to order a copy of an important paper record. I suspect a longer-lasting reason is that genealogy is a hobby, to be paid for out of shrinking disposable income. Further, our "target audience" is largely seniors, many on fixed incomes. If paying for DNA testing leads to more records to be ordered, its cost seems high. To overcome the objection, we could ask, "How much do you want to know? You've invested a great deal of time, effort and money (Think Ancestry.com subscriptions and courthouse or FHL visits.) to reach this point. Do you want to see the payoff of that investment?" 2. FEAR of ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: a. LEGAL: There may be concern about use in criminal prosecution or paternity. However, this may be more serious in the abstract than in the reality. Somehow, I doubt that fugitives from justice are great partakers in family history. As Diana pointed out, genetic genealogy markers are not CODIS markers for forensic use and are not accepted in courts of law -- intentionally so. They do not uniquely identify an individual, merely the ancestral line. b: MEDICAL & EMPLOYMENT: Some may be concerned about their insurance companies or employers learning that their results reveal formerly hidden health problems. Diana also pointed out a law (described at http://www.genome.gov/24519851) protects against misuse of the information and, in any case, the tests are (mostly) designed to avoid medical implications. 3. PRIVACY: Few genealogists are inclined to post pictures of their naked selves behaving badly on Facebook pages or to tweet about their dog's breakfast. Maintaining a degree of privacy in this "tell all, show all" world is a concern for many. OOTH, few are "living off the grid" completely. Most try to strike a balance between privacy & disclosure. Though that balance varies from one person to another, it is up to us project admins to assure members that we respect their privacy rights and will honor them to the best of our abilities. 4. NPE DISCOVERY: NPEs (non-parental events) are perhaps the most sensitive issue we deal with. One DNA test could upset a carefully-constructed pedigree. For centuries, genealogies have been faked to prove royal (even holy) descent; some apparently want to maintain the tradition. Overcoming this fear won't be easy. The hard question is "Do you want to propagate a lie or know the truth?" Some will opt for the truth; some will opt not to know. OOTH, some already suspect a NPE and are relieved to find it confirmed. (Jefferson/Hemings comes to mind.) One of our members complained she had no matches and, at the same time, suggested a NPE; checking her FTDNA page, we found she had restricted matches to the project. Removing the restriction revealed 25 matches, most with the surname she'd indicated for the NPE. Let me add two more possible objections to Diana's list: 5. CONFUSION: Genetic genealogy is confusing; unintelligible numeric results are only the beginning of a complex journey. Adding to the confusion, the method may have been oversold in its early days, leading prospective members to distrust us advocates. When confusion or distrust come in, inaction is the most likely result. To overcome this, we must be candid with our prospective members and explain (as simply as we know how) what is involved, what we can help with and what they must do themselves. It may take many iterations, until we strike the chord that resonates with the individual. 6. LACK OF MOTIVATION: Many calling themselves "genealogists" are (in truth) "name collectors"; they see a name and add it to their tree, without regard to sources or evidence. With the Taylor surname, every 3rd new "genealogist" is "related" to President Zachary Taylor (who, BTW, has no living direct male descendants). They are not interested in genetic genealogy because they are not interested in real genealogy. I fear that this objection can not be easily overcome. One can not supply motivation where it does not exist. The best we can do is to nourish the motivation the person may already have. We probably still don't have an exhaustive list. -rt_/) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

When you order deep SNP testing, FTDNA will look at your haplotype and estimate what your haplogroup probably is, then design a testing strategy that will determine your haplogroup using the fewest possible tests, to keep the price down. If you are deduced to be R1b1b2, they will likely begin the testing with M269. http://dgmweb.net/DNA/SNPcharts/R1b_2010-02-12.shtml If you are positive for M269, there is no point in wasting money on testing the upstream SNPs. A deep SNP test will always include the newest SNPs that are relevant to you, as deep as they can go. If you are M269+, but L23-/L49-, you will be declared R1b1b2*. And, yes, some have that result, and some are R1b1*, and so on. It indicates they retain the ancestral condition, rather than possessing any of the subsequent mutations. There are lots of undiscovered SNPs and the search for them is intense and ongoing, especially in Haplogroup R1b. It's expensive research, partly driven by the market place and partly driven by academe, that is, some of the research is being done at commercial labs and some is grant funded at universities. Most of the scientists in commercial labs have strong academic ties, and you will find them as authors of papers in scientific journals. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of fred westcott > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:06 PM > To: y-dna-projects > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] R Deep Clade tests > > What can I expect on an R Deep Clade test? Does FT test SNP's only > back to R to confirm what they have predicted, in my case R1b1b2 ? Or > do they continue testing as far as they can go down the branches ? > And if so is it possible that beyond M269 if I test negative for L23 > L49 that I stay at R1b1b2 ? Do some people deadend here,i.e. their > branch has no further mutations ? Or is it a case of as yet > undiscovered SNP's ? > What prompts the discovery of new SNP's ? Some branches are much more > developed than others. Is it a matter of personal involvement, does > the market play a part in this ? I imagine since so many of European > descent are looking for answers and are willing to pay for SNP's that > this is where the business is. Or are there also funded university > projects ? >

> -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com on Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:48 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA & DYS 464 > <snip> > > I recently had the opportunity to learn more about the > curious DYS 464, to answer a project member's query. > According to FTDNA's FAQ, 464 is a marker (locus?) that > replicates 4 to 6 times with the replications designated > 464a, 464b, 464c, 464d, 464e & 464f. Only about 1.5% > of all those tested have more than four replications of > 464, i.e., 464e &/or 464f. I think I would describe it as there being 4 to 6 *copies* of DYS464, which is why it and others markers like it are called "multi-copy" markers. Replication is the process of a chromosome making a copy of itself, and all the markers replicate. Other multi-copy markers are DYS385a/b, DYS459a/b, and YCAIIa/b. > More curiously, FTDNA reports from low counts to high, that > is, "464a" is always the lowest count of the 464 series, 464b > the next lowest, and so on. Mismatches on 464a-d may be > due to reordering of the results, rather than disagreements > on specific loci. With most multi-copy markers, it is not possible to tell the actual order of the alleles, so, by convention, they are reported lo-hi. I make it a practice to reorder the alleles to produce the fewest difference possible when calculating GD (genetic distance). I don't actually re-order them in my data table because that is not how FTDNA reports them, so I don't want to confuse people, but I reorder them for the process of determining GD (genetic distance). For example... I have a case where two family members have these values at CDYa/b, keeping in mind this is very volatile marker prone to multi-step mutations. Their results were reported: 41 42 40 41 Taken as a straight count, this is a GD of two, one at CDYa and one at CDYb. However, if you re-order them: 41 42 41 40 this can be read as a single two-step mutation at CDYb for a GD of only 1 (one mutation event). I have another case with 21 family members tested, where at DYS464, 20 of them are 12 14 15 15 However, one member of the family has six alleles at that locus. If we line them up as reported and read them literally, we get a GD of 4, for the four differences: 12 14 15 15 12 12 14 15 15 15 However, what probably really happened is that the 12 allele and one of the 15 alleles were duplicated in a mutation single event, which is apparent if we reorder the alleles, which then brings the GD down to only 1, which is a more realistic distance within the family: 12 14 15 15 12 14 15 15 15 12 It is possible to determine the order of the 385a/b alleles with a Kittler test. Most R1b1b2's will actually turn out to be hi-lo with a Kittler test. > In our member's case, there were two mismatches in 464a-d, > but they could not be explained by re-ordering; no order would > have produced fewer mismatches. As these are highly volatile, > I suspected (& FTDNA confirmed) that this was the interpretive > equivalent of slightly more than one mismatch on less volatile > markers. Whether you lean towards maximizing the GD or minimizing it depends in part on how closely the individuals match on other markers. If they are otherwise a close match, it's more probable that a difference of two or three at one marker happened in a single mutation event. If the individuals are not otherwise particularly close, the difference could be the result of several single-step mutation events. There is a way to determine whether big changes in volatile, multi-copy markers are the result of several single-step mutations or one multi-step mutation and that is by testing cousins. As you test more and more distant cousins, you can watch for the appearance of the mutation(s), which will tell you in whom it occurred and in how many stages. Diana

Re a a scientific theory that contradicts their interpretations of religious scriptures: I assume you're talking about evolution, dinosaur fossils, Monkees -oops I mean monkeys- , the earth moving around the sun, and all that crazy talk. But I've been wondering: Which paternal haplogroup did Noah & his 3 sons belong to? Skimming through Genesis so far I've seen about 5 references to Noah, his wife, his 3 sons & their wives, but no daughters, and certainly no daughters' husbands on the Ark. Talk about your major bottleneck... What mutation rate is required to reach the current level of diversity starting from zero at Mt Ararat? Richard Thrift ---- dnalister@comcast.net wrote: I have another reason - religious objections. Some people will object to testing because it is based on a scientific theory that contradicts their interpretations of religious scriptures. I'm not really sure, but I think this may be what a cousin of mine was referring to yesterday when he talked about "his beliefs" as a reason for declining to test. :-( I decided not to press the issue, since it was pretty clear that the answer for that day was no, and I think it will remain no, but I can hope that he will change his mind, and I think people are more likely to change their mind when given some time and space to reflect than when they are hounded. If I succeed in getting this line tested, it may be through some other relative. In this case, the other possible testers are closely related to him, so I probably would not be helping my case by coming on too strong with him, and I don't think that would be the right way to treat him anyway. I was disappointed at the outcome in this case, because when I talked to him once before, I thought he sounded willing. Sometimes I like to mention what is for many genealogists a fringe benefit of testing, learning about the ancient history of one's line. Some people won't consider that a benefit. Kirsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Taylor" <rt-sails@comcast.net> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:47:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Reasons for not testing Thank you, Diana, for cataloguing (in the "Roll Call" thread) four reasons for people not getting genetic genealogy tests. It's an important topic. In sales terms, we'd call these objections to be overcome. 1. COST: The economy's had an effect. However, even before it turned awful, I was hearing from folks who "couldn't afford" a few dollars to order a copy of an important paper record. I suspect a longer-lasting reason is that genealogy is a hobby, to be paid for out of shrinking disposable income. Further, our "target audience" is largely seniors, many on fixed incomes. If paying for DNA testing leads to more records to be ordered, its cost seems high. To overcome the objection, we could ask, "How much do you want to know? You've invested a great deal of time, effort and money (Think Ancestry.com subscriptions and courthouse or FHL visits.) to reach this point. Do you want to see the payoff of that investment?" 2. FEAR of ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: a. LEGAL: There may be concern about use in criminal prosecution or paternity. However, this may be more serious in the abstract than in the reality. Somehow, I doubt that fugitives from justice are great partakers in family history. As Diana pointed out, genetic genealogy markers are not CODIS markers for forensic use and are not accepted in courts of law -- intentionally so. They do not uniquely identify an individual, merely the ancestral line. b: MEDICAL & EMPLOYMENT: Some may be concerned about their insurance companies or employers learning that their results reveal formerly hidden health problems. Diana also pointed out a law (described at http://www.genome.gov/24519851) protects against misuse of the information and, in any case, the tests are (mostly) designed to avoid medical implications. 3. PRIVACY: Few genealogists are inclined to post pictures of their naked selves behaving badly on Facebook pages or to tweet about their dog's breakfast. Maintaining a degree of privacy in this "tell all, show all" world is a concern for many. OOTH, few are "living off the grid" completely. Most try to strike a balance between privacy & disclosure. Though that balance varies from one person to another, it is up to us project admins to assure members that we respect their privacy rights and will honor them to the best of our abilities. 4. NPE DISCOVERY: NPEs (non-parental events) are perhaps the most sensitive issue we deal with. One DNA test could upset a carefully-constructed pedigree. For centuries, genealogies have been faked to prove royal (even holy) descent; some apparently want to maintain the tradition. Overcoming this fear won't be easy. The hard question is "Do you want to propagate a lie or know the truth?" Some will opt for the truth; some will opt not to know. OOTH, some already suspect a NPE and are relieved to find it confirmed. (Jefferson/Hemings comes to mind.) One of our members complained she had no matches and, at the same time, suggested a NPE; checking her FTDNA page, we found she had restricted matches to the project. Removing the restriction revealed 25 matches, most with the surname she'd indicated for the NPE. Let me add two more possible objections to Diana's list: 5. CONFUSION: Genetic genealogy is confusing; unintelligible numeric results are only the beginning of a complex journey. Adding to the confusion, the method may have been oversold in its early days, leading prospective members to distrust us advocates. When confusion or distrust come in, inaction is the most likely result. To overcome this, we must be candid with our prospective members and explain (as simply as we know how) what is involved, what we can help with and what they must do themselves. It may take many iterations, until we strike the chord that resonates with the individual. 6. LACK OF MOTIVATION: Many calling themselves "genealogists" are (in truth) "name collectors"; they see a name and add it to their tree, without regard to sources or evidence. With the Taylor surname, every 3rd new "genealogist" is "related" to President Zachary Taylor (who, BTW, has no living direct male descendants). They are not interested in genetic genealogy because they are not interested in real genealogy. I fear that this objection can not be easily overcome. One can not supply motivation where it does not exist. The best we can do is to nourish the motivation the person may already have. We probably still don't have an exhaustive list. -rt_/) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-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-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Diana Sorry about the confusion my poor typing skills were to blame, it should be 33 not 31! The tests were done through Ancestry. Steve

Hi Ralph, To "Confusion" add "Frustration". Seniors that are interested in genealogy and think that DNA testing is going to give them some easy if costly answers sometimes find this is not true. They then have to pick up an additional hobby, genetic genealogy, which is difficult for those who have not been in a scientific or technical field. My original mtdna test was at Relative Genetics. My group was T. I later had results at SMGF - they put my results in group K. This puts the testee in a difficult position. You have to spend a lot of time finding out why this happens. My y results were equally frustrating. I'm reading a lot and trying to educate myself. There is no one place to find all the answers, and as good as some sites are, there are still unanswered questions. This mail list is a terrific help for those who are willing to put in the time. It takes heaps of it. Many thanks to Diana. Fred On 6/14/10, Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> wrote: > Thank you, Diana, for cataloguing (in the "Roll Call" thread) four reasons > for people not getting genetic genealogy tests. It's an important topic. > > In sales terms, we'd call these objections to be overcome. > > 1. COST: > > The economy's had an effect. However, even before it turned awful, I was > hearing from folks who "couldn't afford" a few dollars to order a copy of an > important paper record. I suspect a longer-lasting reason is that genealogy > is a hobby, to be paid for out of shrinking disposable income. Further, our > "target audience" is largely seniors, many on fixed incomes. If paying for > DNA testing leads to more records to be ordered, its cost seems high. > > To overcome the objection, we could ask, "How much do you want to know? > You've invested a great deal of time, effort and money (Think Ancestry.com > subscriptions and courthouse or FHL visits.) to reach this point. Do you > want to see the payoff of that investment?" > > 2. FEAR of ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: > > a. LEGAL: > > There may be concern about use in criminal prosecution or paternity. > However, this may be more serious in the abstract than in the reality. > Somehow, I doubt that fugitives from justice are great partakers in family > history. > > As Diana pointed out, genetic genealogy markers are not CODIS markers for > forensic use and are not accepted in courts of law -- intentionally so. They > do not uniquely identify an individual, merely the ancestral line. > > b: MEDICAL & EMPLOYMENT: > > Some may be concerned about their insurance companies or employers learning > that their results reveal formerly hidden health problems. > > Diana also pointed out a law (described at http://www.genome.gov/24519851) > protects against misuse of the information and, in any case, the tests are > (mostly) designed to avoid medical implications. > > 3. PRIVACY: > > Few genealogists are inclined to post pictures of their naked selves > behaving badly on Facebook pages or to tweet about their dog's breakfast. > Maintaining a degree of privacy in this "tell all, show all" world is a > concern for many. > > OOTH, few are "living off the grid" completely. Most try to strike a balance > between privacy & disclosure. Though that balance varies from one person to > another, it is up to us project admins to assure members that we respect > their privacy rights and will honor them to the best of our abilities. > > 4. NPE DISCOVERY: > > NPEs (non-parental events) are perhaps the most sensitive issue we deal > with. One DNA test could upset a carefully-constructed pedigree. For > centuries, genealogies have been faked to prove royal (even holy) descent; > some apparently want to maintain the tradition. > > Overcoming this fear won't be easy. The hard question is "Do you want to > propagate a lie or know the truth?" Some will opt for the truth; some will > opt not to know. > > OOTH, some already suspect a NPE and are relieved to find it confirmed. > (Jefferson/Hemings comes to mind.) One of our members complained she had no > matches and, at the same time, suggested a NPE; checking her FTDNA page, we > found she had restricted matches to the project. Removing the restriction > revealed 25 matches, most with the surname she'd indicated for the NPE. > > Let me add two more possible objections to Diana's list: > > 5. CONFUSION: > > Genetic genealogy is confusing; unintelligible numeric results are only the > beginning of a complex journey. Adding to the confusion, the method may have > been oversold in its early days, leading prospective members to distrust us > advocates. When confusion or distrust come in, inaction is the most likely > result. > > To overcome this, we must be candid with our prospective members and explain > (as simply as we know how) what is involved, what we can help with and what > they must do themselves. It may take many iterations, until we strike the > chord that resonates with the individual. > > 6. LACK OF MOTIVATION: > > Many calling themselves "genealogists" are (in truth) "name collectors"; > they see a name and add it to their tree, without regard to sources or > evidence. With the Taylor surname, every 3rd new "genealogist" is "related" > to President Zachary Taylor (who, BTW, has no living direct male > descendants). They are not interested in genetic genealogy because they are > not interested in real genealogy. > > I fear that this objection can not be easily overcome. One can not supply > motivation where it does not exist. The best we can do is to nourish the > motivation the person may already have. > > > We probably still don't have an exhaustive list. > > -rt_/) > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

What can I expect on an R Deep Clade test? Does FT test SNP's only back to R to confirm what they have predicted, in my case R1b1b2 ? Or do they continue testing as far as they can go down the branches ? And if so is it possible that beyond M269 if I test negative for L23 L49 that I stay at R1b1b2 ? Do some people deadend here,i.e. their branch has no further mutations ? Or is it a case of as yet undiscovered SNP's ? What prompts the discovery of new SNP's ? Some branches are much more developed than others. Is it a matter of personal involvement, does the market play a part in this ? I imagine since so many of European descent are looking for answers and are willing to pay for SNP's that this is where the business is. Or are there also funded university projects ?

Diana wrote, "They {FTDNA} do test them {19b, 464e and 464f}. However, as the vast majority of people don't have those markers, FTDNA simply doesn't include them in the count for advertising purposes." I recently had the opportunity to learn more about the curious DYS 464, to answer a project member's query. According to FTDNA's FAQ, 464 is a marker (locus?) that replicates 4 to 6 times with the replications designated 464a, 464b, 464c, 464d, 464e & 464f. Only about 1.5% of all those tested have more than four replications of 464, i.e., 464e &/or 464f. More curiously, FTDNA reports from low counts to high, that is, "464a" is always the lowest count of the 464 series, 464b the next lowest, and so on. Mismatches on 464a-d may be due to reordering of the results, rather than disagreements on specific loci. In our member's case, there were two mismatches in 464a-d, but they could not be explained by re-ordering; no order would have produced fewer mismatches. As these are highly volatile, I suspected (& FTDNA confirmed) that this was the interpretive equivalent of slightly more than one mismatch on less volatile markers. -rt_/)

Thank you, Diana, for cataloguing (in the "Roll Call" thread) four reasons for people not getting genetic genealogy tests. It's an important topic. In sales terms, we'd call these objections to be overcome. 1. COST: The economy's had an effect. However, even before it turned awful, I was hearing from folks who "couldn't afford" a few dollars to order a copy of an important paper record. I suspect a longer-lasting reason is that genealogy is a hobby, to be paid for out of shrinking disposable income. Further, our "target audience" is largely seniors, many on fixed incomes. If paying for DNA testing leads to more records to be ordered, its cost seems high. To overcome the objection, we could ask, "How much do you want to know? You've invested a great deal of time, effort and money (Think Ancestry.com subscriptions and courthouse or FHL visits.) to reach this point. Do you want to see the payoff of that investment?" 2. FEAR of ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES: a. LEGAL: There may be concern about use in criminal prosecution or paternity. However, this may be more serious in the abstract than in the reality. Somehow, I doubt that fugitives from justice are great partakers in family history. As Diana pointed out, genetic genealogy markers are not CODIS markers for forensic use and are not accepted in courts of law -- intentionally so. They do not uniquely identify an individual, merely the ancestral line. b: MEDICAL & EMPLOYMENT: Some may be concerned about their insurance companies or employers learning that their results reveal formerly hidden health problems. Diana also pointed out a law (described at http://www.genome.gov/24519851) protects against misuse of the information and, in any case, the tests are (mostly) designed to avoid medical implications. 3. PRIVACY: Few genealogists are inclined to post pictures of their naked selves behaving badly on Facebook pages or to tweet about their dog's breakfast. Maintaining a degree of privacy in this "tell all, show all" world is a concern for many. OOTH, few are "living off the grid" completely. Most try to strike a balance between privacy & disclosure. Though that balance varies from one person to another, it is up to us project admins to assure members that we respect their privacy rights and will honor them to the best of our abilities. 4. NPE DISCOVERY: NPEs (non-parental events) are perhaps the most sensitive issue we deal with. One DNA test could upset a carefully-constructed pedigree. For centuries, genealogies have been faked to prove royal (even holy) descent; some apparently want to maintain the tradition. Overcoming this fear won't be easy. The hard question is "Do you want to propagate a lie or know the truth?" Some will opt for the truth; some will opt not to know. OOTH, some already suspect a NPE and are relieved to find it confirmed. (Jefferson/Hemings comes to mind.) One of our members complained she had no matches and, at the same time, suggested a NPE; checking her FTDNA page, we found she had restricted matches to the project. Removing the restriction revealed 25 matches, most with the surname she'd indicated for the NPE. Let me add two more possible objections to Diana's list: 5. CONFUSION: Genetic genealogy is confusing; unintelligible numeric results are only the beginning of a complex journey. Adding to the confusion, the method may have been oversold in its early days, leading prospective members to distrust us advocates. When confusion or distrust come in, inaction is the most likely result. To overcome this, we must be candid with our prospective members and explain (as simply as we know how) what is involved, what we can help with and what they must do themselves. It may take many iterations, until we strike the chord that resonates with the individual. 6. LACK OF MOTIVATION: Many calling themselves "genealogists" are (in truth) "name collectors"; they see a name and add it to their tree, without regard to sources or evidence. With the Taylor surname, every 3rd new "genealogist" is "related" to President Zachary Taylor (who, BTW, has no living direct male descendants). They are not interested in genetic genealogy because they are not interested in real genealogy. I fear that this objection can not be easily overcome. One can not supply motivation where it does not exist. The best we can do is to nourish the motivation the person may already have. We probably still don't have an exhaustive list. -rt_/)

> Great job, CeCe! I love it. How is it being used? > Doris > > > > > > Wow! There are some impressive members and projects here! > I am CeCe Moore. I have been researching my family for about ten years with > a lot of emphasis on my Finnish ancestry, which prior to my work, was > largely unknown. Happily, I can say that I now enjoy communicating with my > many Finnish cousins in Finland as well as all over the US. > I have been participating in Ancestry DNA testing for a couple of years, > but have been interested in it since it's inception. I recently took over as > the admin for the Proctor Surname Project at FTDNA and started one at > Ancestry as well to try to recruit as many Proctors as possible. The FTDNA > project had previously never been handled by a family member (my mother is a > Proctor) and was one of the many under Terry Barton's administration. > Because of its lack of attention, it is very small for a fairly well-known > surname. Therefore, my efforts will be focused mostly on recruitment until I > can get a reasonable amount of testees for comparison. I hope to eventually > enjoy the exciting successes that many of you here are describing. > I recently participated in the beta testing phase for both 23andme's > Relative Finder and FTDNA's Family Finder, so I have acquired quite a bit of > experience in the autosomal DNA testing. I am open to questions offlist in > that regard since that is not this list's focus. I also post regularly on > the ISOGG DNA-Newbie List. > My "real" job is producing television commercials, although lately I spend > more time on my genetic genealogy hobby. I was recently fortunate to have > the opportunity to combine the two in this spot for FTDNA's Family Finder: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxaoMLDSFk > Incidentally, the photos used in the commercial are some of the many family > photos that I have tracked down over the years and shared on my public > family tree, thus combining my other genealogy-related hobby as well. > I look forward to learning more from this "kinder and gentler" forum and > thank Diana for hosting it. > CeCe > > > ------------------------------ >

Where can I find the y-dna-projects archieves? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > Hello Barry, > > I have found a number of reasons people, even genealogists, don't get > tested: > > 1. The cost. The cost has been going down, which is helpful, but it's > still > expensive. I have noticed a *huge* drop in new members since the 2008 > financial > crash in the U.S. Hopeful, as we climb out of this recession, we'll find > more > people testing again. With the cost obstacle removed, as when someone is > offered a free test, we have to look for other reasons. > > 2. Fear that the test results can somehow be used against them. If > someone is > a criminal, they might very well need to be afraid of being identified, > however, > the markers used in Y-DNA STR testing for genealogical purposes are not > the > CODIS markers used by law enforcement. However, these people are going to > be > keeping a low profile in any case. But neither is there any medical > information > in them, and there is a law to prevent such misuse: > http://www.genome.gov/24519851 > > 3. A strong sense of privacy. You are going to find it hard to get past > the > fact that some people have a very strong sense of privacy. Exactly how > you > handle this depends in part on where someone is being tested. At > Ancestry, if > you upload your results and belong to a group, everyone in the group will > know > who you are and see your test results, but the group, test results, and > member > identities are not accessible to the general public. In contrast, most > FTDNA > projects make their results public, but keep the member identities > private, > based on this policy: > http://www.familytreedna.com/privacy-policy.aspx > > I try to relieve people's anxieties by fully disclosing my mtDNA results > and > reminding them they should be much more concerned about people finding out > their > social security number than their DNA test results! > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/mtDNA-T-haplotree-DGM.shtml > > 4. Uncovering an NPE. Nobody expects and NPE, and I agree they are > devastating > when they occur. Just as we are told not to do our genealogy, unless we > can > deal with finding out something we'd rather not have known, no one should > be DNA > tested, unless they can handle an unexpected result. And here we find one > reason royalty aren't rushing out to be DNA tested for the benefit of > genealogists who want to prove a connection to them: they have everything > to > lose and little to gain by being tested. All I can do for my members in > this > regard is let them know that, in case of an NPE, I will do everything in > my > power to help them connect to their "real" family. > > There are other reasons I'm sure why people don't get tested. All I can > suggest > is that we recognize these issues and do what we can to relieve people's > anxieties about them. I've been delighted by the two recent TV series > involving > genealogy and genetic testing. Hopefully, such programs will help people > to see > that DNA testing for genealogical purposes is nothing to be afraid of. > And > wouldn't we just love it if it became a fad! > > Diana > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Barry >> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:19 PM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call >> > <snip> >> >> Five of the tested members and I came together through >> Claypoole Connection >> on Facebook, but announcements and attempted recruitment via >> the various >> Claypoole/Claypool genealogical message boards and mailing >> lists have been a >> great disappointment, not yielding any project members to date. >> >> Additionally, a number of people with an established background in >> traditional genealogy, and with published genealogies, have >> not taken the >> opportunity to be tested, even when offered a test at no cost >> to themselves. >> >> All advice welcome! >> >> Barry >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Nice video, CeCe! Charles Acree -------------------------------. . . . My "real" job is producing television commercials, although lately I spend more time on my genetic genealogy hobby. I was recently fortunate to have the opportunity to combine the two in this spot for FTDNA's Family Finder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxaoMLDSFk Incidentally, the photos used in the commercial are some of the many family photos that I have tracked down over the years and shared on my public family tree, thus combining my other genealogy-related hobby as well . . . CeCe

I agree! Extremely well done, CeCe! > > > > > >snip > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxaoMLDSFk > > snip. > > CeCe > > >

Mike Humphrey here, admin of the FTDNA Humphrey project (all spellings, past & present), 71 members. I have Gedcom files at FTDNA, IGI, Ancestry.com, my personal web-site _http://humphreygenealogy.com_ (http://humphreygenealogy.com) , with 3000+ names. I also co-admin the Liles project I started the FTDNA project after initially testing with Oxford Ancestors seeking to eventually "prove" a father-son NPE, and I was lucky enough to find a 9th cousin, who tested at age 83. We had 35/37 & 65/67 matches, affirming 5 generations of family verbal lore. A lot of sleuthing occurred to find our 9th cousin, and the contact came from info at a reunion of 3rd cousins in upstate NY. This link confirmed a male-line family tree back to 1620 in Dorset. We've had success at FTDNA, merging several family trees, finding ancestors back to 1565, 1577, & 1620 in Wendover, Buckinghamshire; Honiton, Devon; and Lyme Regis, Dorset. We've been able to merge some trees back to Wales, circa 1700 - mostly spellings of Humphries or Humphreys. ----- Currently, I'm a professional trombonist & computer science consultant - retired from the computer biz in 2003. I worked as an applied mathematician/computer programmer in the aerospace industry for 10 years, Boeing, Lockheed, Aerospace Corp., mostly mathematical modeling & programming missile flight simulations. An early project: math modeling of the exhaust plume of the Saturn V rocket booster for Apollo 11. Later, I worked for several computer companies, CDC, KSR, Cray, SGI, SUN, adapting computer simulations to massively parallel computers, with dozens or hundreds of processors. E.G., I parallelized & optimized weather prediction applications on SGI systems with over 1000 processors at NOAA GFDL in Princeton. I focused on aerospace simulations and weather prediction models at the end of my career, working again with Boeing, Lockheed, NOAA, and many universities. I've done genealogical research for 40+ years, and was bitten by the DNA bug over 10 years ago. When genetic testing was commercialized, I took the opportunity to solve our "NPE", and then became fascinated with human population studies, reading Cavalli-Sforza's papers at Stanford & others. I followed the burgeoning activities on WebSites like Rootsweb, and I've really enjoyed seeing the progress made by researchers like Ken Nordtvedt! Happy Hunting ... Mike ... ========================================

Hi Everyone, My names is Steve Medley, last year I had a 31 Marker test done along with a suspected extremely distant relative, Peter, who had a know variation of the family name, and to our great delight we had a match at 27 markers ( not too bad considering it was around 700 years since the last common ancestro,.We can trace our family tree back to the Early Norman era.) Our Haploroup is I2b1a, and as Peter had a larger numbers of markers done it indicates we are members of the M284 Subclade. We have our own DNA site with 30 members ( but only 5 sets of DNA) and I would happily welcome anyone who wished to join. It has been suggested that the John Medley that went to Maryland in 1635 was related to our branch of the family in Elland in Yorkshire , however sadly we are unable to find any member of that family with matching DNA. If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can further our research , or any ideas to further our cause it would be apprected. Regards Steve Medley

They do test them. However, as the vast majority of people don't have those markers, FTDNA simply doesn't include them in the count for advertising purposes. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of James Castellan > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:42 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > > Diana, > > How does FT DNA know if one has 19b, 464e and 464f to decide > to add those to be tersted? > > Jim

Hello Barry, I have found a number of reasons people, even genealogists, don't get tested: 1. The cost. The cost has been going down, which is helpful, but it's still expensive. I have noticed a *huge* drop in new members since the 2008 financial crash in the U.S. Hopeful, as we climb out of this recession, we'll find more people testing again. With the cost obstacle removed, as when someone is offered a free test, we have to look for other reasons. 2. Fear that the test results can somehow be used against them. If someone is a criminal, they might very well need to be afraid of being identified, however, the markers used in Y-DNA STR testing for genealogical purposes are not the CODIS markers used by law enforcement. However, these people are going to be keeping a low profile in any case. But neither is there any medical information in them, and there is a law to prevent such misuse: http://www.genome.gov/24519851 3. A strong sense of privacy. You are going to find it hard to get past the fact that some people have a very strong sense of privacy. Exactly how you handle this depends in part on where someone is being tested. At Ancestry, if you upload your results and belong to a group, everyone in the group will know who you are and see your test results, but the group, test results, and member identities are not accessible to the general public. In contrast, most FTDNA projects make their results public, but keep the member identities private, based on this policy: http://www.familytreedna.com/privacy-policy.aspx I try to relieve people's anxieties by fully disclosing my mtDNA results and reminding them they should be much more concerned about people finding out their social security number than their DNA test results! http://dgmweb.net/DNA/mtDNA-T-haplotree-DGM.shtml 4. Uncovering an NPE. Nobody expects and NPE, and I agree they are devastating when they occur. Just as we are told not to do our genealogy, unless we can deal with finding out something we'd rather not have known, no one should be DNA tested, unless they can handle an unexpected result. And here we find one reason royalty aren't rushing out to be DNA tested for the benefit of genealogists who want to prove a connection to them: they have everything to lose and little to gain by being tested. All I can do for my members in this regard is let them know that, in case of an NPE, I will do everything in my power to help them connect to their "real" family. There are other reasons I'm sure why people don't get tested. All I can suggest is that we recognize these issues and do what we can to relieve people's anxieties about them. I've been delighted by the two recent TV series involving genealogy and genetic testing. Hopefully, such programs will help people to see that DNA testing for genealogical purposes is nothing to be afraid of. And wouldn't we just love it if it became a fad! Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Barry > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 9:19 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > <snip> > > Five of the tested members and I came together through > Claypoole Connection > on Facebook, but announcements and attempted recruitment via > the various > Claypoole/Claypool genealogical message boards and mailing > lists have been a > great disappointment, not yielding any project members to date. > > Additionally, a number of people with an established background in > traditional genealogy, and with published genealogies, have > not taken the > opportunity to be tested, even when offered a test at no cost > to themselves. > > All advice welcome! > > Barry >

Often the reason why the matches don't show up at 12, 25 or 37 markers is simply that people have chosen not to receive match notifications at these levels. Most people with lots of matches at 12 markers seem to switch off the 12-marker matches. With R1b and I1 people can sometimes have over 1000 matches at the 12-marker level. Debbie Kennett

Diana, How does FT DNA know if one has 19b, 464e and 464f to decide to add those to be tersted? Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA > Hello Steve, > > I thought it might be a typo, but the real number could have been 30, 33, > or 37, > so I had to ask! > > The Ancestry test is actually only 30 markers (and their 46 marker test is > actually only 43 markers). Ancestry includes 19b, 464e, and 464f in their > count, which are markers almost no one has. If you have them, FTDNA will > test > them without charge, so by Ancestry's reckoning, FTDNA tests 40 and 70 > markers, > not just 37 and 67. I mention this because it affects what you're telling > me > about your match with Peter. > > If you had tested 33 markers, and you only matched Peter 27/33, it would > indicate you're most likely not related to him in genealogical time. The > fact > that you match 27/30 does allow that you could be related in genealogical > time, > though it is not a close match. > > Are you in contact with the admin of the MEDLEY project at FTDNA? Do you > have a > Medley Group at Ancestry? While it's great to have your own web site -- I > have > ones for my projects -- you also need the benefit of having a > group/project at > your testing lab's web site, so people can easily find it. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley >> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:35 AM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA >> >> Hi Diana >> Sorry about the confusion my poor typing skills were to blame, it >> should be 33 not 31! >> The tests were done through Ancestry. >> Steve >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Stephen Medley >> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:56 PM >> To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Medley Family DNA >> >> Hi Everyone, >> My names is Steve Medley, last year I had a 31 Marker test done >> along with a suspected extremely distant relative, Peter, who had a >> know variation of the family name, and to our great delight we had a >> match at 27 markers ( not too bad considering it was around 700 years >> since the last common ancestro,.We can trace our family tree back to >> the Early Norman era.) >> Our Haploroup is I2b1a, and as Peter had a larger numbers of markers >> done it indicates we are members of the M284 Subclade. We have our >> own DNA site with 30 members ( but only 5 sets of DNA) and I would >> happily welcome anyone who wished to join. >> >> It has been suggested that the John Medley that went to Maryland in >> 1635 was related to our branch of the family in Elland in Yorkshire , >> however sadly we are unable to find any member of that family with >> matching DNA. >> If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can further our research , >> or any ideas to further our cause it would be apprected. >> Regards >> Steve Medley > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message