Sorry in my last post I forgot to switch the subject line. A corollary to desiring more participants in my study, is my concern that if it grows much more it will consume my entire life! I don't have a particularly large study right now, but it's evolution is proving what a complex surname I have. There are multiple groups with matches possibly, if not probably, within a genealogical timeframe to other surnames. Oh for a study where everybody matches their own name with only an oddball NPE. Even where the matches to other surnames are more likely before the time surnames came into use, my participants in general are very interested in those early ancestral origins, which is an even more time-consuming thing to digest, at least for me. If I'm lucky to have several participants doing a substantial amount of research on their line/group. That's an enormous help, while at the same time I spend a lot of time trying to get up to speed with their methods and reasoning. All I can re! ally do here is state the obvious: the larger the project the more time it's going to take. I love doing this, but I'm growing concerned about the time commitment. Martha

I like your plan about finding two lines and offering to pay for both to see if they're related! Not sure if it will work, because what I usually run into in the UK is people with my surname assuming they are related to anyone else with my surname, with no real interest in even imagining, let alone paying for a test, that that might not be the case. What I am unclear about is just what statements or questions to many in the UK/Europe find offensive? How would we word are interested in our help in such a way that they would not feel offended? This is hard for me to get because I am very open minded and really don't care much what other people think. Would it help or hurt to place the emphasis on the way that their participation would help immigrants to find their roots, as opposed to trying to convince them that there is something for them to get out of it? On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Sharon wrote: > My plan was to find one person with our surname who was interested in > family history and ask if there is another family they've wondered if they > were related to - then offer to test both. > > There's also something that you alluded to - more than one person told me I > needed to be very careful about how I worded the offer to avoid offending > prospective participants.

Yes, indeed, the U.S. and Australia share having an immigrant population of persons displaced from their origins. It stands to reason we'd be the first to embrace DNA testing for genealogical purposes. As far as I know, FTDNA does not advertise, beyond the fact that the web site itself is an advertisement, as are the individual project web sites. The internet is global, so no geographic region is any less favored over any other, beyond the fact that the clientele still largely speaks English. That is changing, though, as I see more projects appearing for surnames and regions that are not Anglocentric or even Eurocentric. FTDNA is very dependent on its project admins for promoting DNA testing. *We* are their advertising force. If a project admin is not out there "selling" their project, they shouldn't expect their project to grow based on FTDNA's advertising -- because they're not advertising! Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Troy > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 2:11 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > G'day > > We Aussies have some of the same issues as the USA in > connecting with UK > cousins. I have 56x 12 marker matches: 1 is from Australia, > 1 is from > NZ, 0 from the UK. Part of the problem might be marketing. I have > never seen an advertisement for FTDNA in any Australian publication, > genealogy or otherwise. Not one. I don't know what the situation is > with FTDNA/iGenea marketing to the UK. Anyway I have recently asked > FTDNA to cast their net a bit wider. > > Cheers > Brent >

Hello Sharon, I don't think the situation is hopeless, I just think we need to accept that it can take years to attract the needed test subjects. I've had some standing offers out there since 2004, and only a handful have come to fruition, but they have succeeded. As you say, sometimes people with solid paper connections to a European progenitor don't think they need to test. I will challenge these people by saying *no one*, no matter how solid their paper trail, can be certain they don't have an NPE unless they test. This prompts some to jump in and test, but others to resist even more strongly. To them I say, get tested in private, without telling anyone. If you get the result you expect, you can proclaim the indisputable proof of your ancestry. If not, no one need ever know. If all the offers for testing I have out there get accepted, all at once, I will need to take out a loan... Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Sharon Fontenot > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 1:58 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > Hi Diana - > > What I meant was that for every success story I heard (*I > really did hear > one or two*), there were several stories of frustration, > miscommunication, > and failure. Even though I'd thought I had a workable plan, > it made me > realize that I may not yet have the skills necessary to pull it off. > > This point you brought up in your previous post is something > we simply have > to realize and accept: > *People living in Europe know **where they came from (may > still be living > in the ancestral regions), so feel no **need to test**.* > > The harder part is figuring out how to interest someone in > DNA testing when > they already know their family history for hundreds of years > back and take > that knowledge for granted. > > I always expected to pay for several tests. > > Sharon > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen > <DianaGM@dgmweb.net>wrote: > > > Sharon, > > > > I'm not certain I understand what the negative feedback was > about. Can you > > explain further? > > > > As for approaching strangers re testing, I agree that must > be handled > > carefully. > > My solution is to put out offers for testing -- on my > project web sites and > > the > > various genealogy message boards -- then wait to get a > taker. I've waited > > years > > in many cases, but I have gotten some takers this way. > > > > If genealogy takes patience, DNA testing for genealogical > purposes takes a > > *lot* > > of patience. > > > > Diana > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of > Sharon Fontenot > > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:31 PM > > > To: rt-sails@comcast.net; y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > > > > > Ralph - > > > > > > My project is still new and very small, but I have intended > > > to do this. I > > > obtained permission from a local history association in the > > > area I'm most > > > interested in to post on their messageboard, but at the same > > > time I got > > > negative feedback from people in the US who've recruited UK > > > participants. > > > Hearing that men would/might expect to be paid something in > > > addition to the > > > free Y67 test made me wonder if I could really afford to do > > > this on my own. > > > My plan was to find one person with our surname who was > interested in > > > family history and ask if there is another family they've > > > wondered if they > > > were related to - then offer to test both. > > > > > > There's also something that you alluded to - more than one > > > person told me I > > > needed to be very careful about how I worded the offer to > > > avoid offending > > > prospective participants. > > > > > > I haven't totally given up on the idea, so I'd like to hear > > > any success > > > stories people have to offer. > > > > > > Sharon > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Sharon, I'm not certain I understand what the negative feedback was about. Can you explain further? As for approaching strangers re testing, I agree that must be handled carefully. My solution is to put out offers for testing -- on my project web sites and the various genealogy message boards -- then wait to get a taker. I've waited years in many cases, but I have gotten some takers this way. If genealogy takes patience, DNA testing for genealogical purposes takes a *lot* of patience. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Sharon Fontenot > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:31 PM > To: rt-sails@comcast.net; y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > Ralph - > > My project is still new and very small, but I have intended > to do this. I > obtained permission from a local history association in the > area I'm most > interested in to post on their messageboard, but at the same > time I got > negative feedback from people in the US who've recruited UK > participants. > Hearing that men would/might expect to be paid something in > addition to the > free Y67 test made me wonder if I could really afford to do > this on my own. > My plan was to find one person with our surname who was interested in > family history and ask if there is another family they've > wondered if they > were related to - then offer to test both. > > There's also something that you alluded to - more than one > person told me I > needed to be very careful about how I worded the offer to > avoid offending > prospective participants. > > I haven't totally given up on the idea, so I'd like to hear > any success > stories people have to offer. > > Sharon >

Hi Diana - What I meant was that for every success story I heard (*I really did hear one or two*), there were several stories of frustration, miscommunication, and failure. Even though I'd thought I had a workable plan, it made me realize that I may not yet have the skills necessary to pull it off. This point you brought up in your previous post is something we simply have to realize and accept: *People living in Europe know **where they came from (may still be living in the ancestral regions), so feel no **need to test**.* The harder part is figuring out how to interest someone in DNA testing when they already know their family history for hundreds of years back and take that knowledge for granted. I always expected to pay for several tests. Sharon On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net>wrote: > Sharon, > > I'm not certain I understand what the negative feedback was about. Can you > explain further? > > As for approaching strangers re testing, I agree that must be handled > carefully. > My solution is to put out offers for testing -- on my project web sites and > the > various genealogy message boards -- then wait to get a taker. I've waited > years > in many cases, but I have gotten some takers this way. > > If genealogy takes patience, DNA testing for genealogical purposes takes a > *lot* > of patience. > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Sharon Fontenot > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:31 PM > > To: rt-sails@comcast.net; y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > > > Ralph - > > > > My project is still new and very small, but I have intended > > to do this. I > > obtained permission from a local history association in the > > area I'm most > > interested in to post on their messageboard, but at the same > > time I got > > negative feedback from people in the US who've recruited UK > > participants. > > Hearing that men would/might expect to be paid something in > > addition to the > > free Y67 test made me wonder if I could really afford to do > > this on my own. > > My plan was to find one person with our surname who was interested in > > family history and ask if there is another family they've > > wondered if they > > were related to - then offer to test both. > > > > There's also something that you alluded to - more than one > > person told me I > > needed to be very careful about how I worded the offer to > > avoid offending > > prospective participants. > > > > I haven't totally given up on the idea, so I'd like to hear > > any success > > stories people have to offer. > > > > Sharon > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

A lot of researchers keep tabs on the various haplogroup projects. We have a couple looking at R-P312(S116) and its subclades. Please encourage your deep clade tested project members to update their MDKA incestor info as best they can and to join the appropriate haplogroup projects. Below is a note for P312 specifically. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We have a lot of people in the R-P312(S116) Y DNA family that have deep clade tested. We can learn a lot more about this group by reviewing and evaluating the haplotype data within the context of the subclades as well as within the total P312 umbrella. I can easily download data from FTDNA project screens and do various calculations like diversity, variance, GD mins & maxs, etc by geography once I get the data reformatted. I've already done this for R-L21* folks an R-M222 folks. Please help and encourage R-P312(S116) and related sub-clade tested people to update their Most Distant Ancestor Info (MDKA) to include the proper surname, country, county/shire and nearest city/village information. For FTDNA people this is PATERNAL SIDE data entry cell on the USER PREFERENCES screen. Example: John Doe, b.1868, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, Wales. Please also encourage the P-312 folks to join the proper haplogroup projects. All R-P312(S116) subclades and R-P312*: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx? R-L21(S145): http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21/default.aspx? R-U152(S28): http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx? R-M153: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-M153_The_Basque_Marker/default.aspx? R-SRY2627(M167): http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c6/default.aspx? R-M222 (NW Irish): http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7/default.aspx? R-L226 (Irish TIII): http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L226_Project/default.aspx? R-L159: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L159.2/default.aspx? reference: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html Regards, Mike

I have run into the same situation in my projects. People living in Europe know where they came from (may still be living in the ancestral regions), so feel no need to test. We are the "displaced persons" looking for our roots, and he who wishes to call the tune must pay the piper... In almost all cases where we have Europeans tested for my projects, we have sought them out and the project has paid for their testing. And we have standing offers to test more, for example: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Carrico/CarricoDNA.shtml#Subsidies Far from resenting that these individuals are having their testing paid for, my members are eager to see Europeans tested -- the origin of American CARRICOs remains a mystery -- so the General Fund usually contains enough donations to cover at least one 67-marker test. When it doesn't, I pay for the test. In two cases, I have had members take kits with them on European vacations where they sought out people to test -- and got takers. FTDNA will give you kits "on spec" without charge to take on your travels or to reunions, etc. The kits have a long shelf life until they are actually used. The charge is not incurred until the kit is returned -- it must be paid for before they will process it. But the bottom line is, yes, it's difficult to get European participation. In most cases, you will have to actively seek out individuals and pay for the tests. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 5:53 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Country of Origin Participation > > Are other surname projects having difficulty in getting significant > participation in their names' countries of origin? Have any > cracked the nut? > > > I'd be interested in observations & ideas on the subject. > > In Taylor Family Genes, we have only 5 members from the UK > out of 374 total. > For a (mostly) British-origin surname, that's embarrassing. > We'd like to at > least reduce the level of embarrassment. > > We also have a few in Australia, Canada & New Zealand -- along with a > smattering of other countries. > > I imagine our present members would be thrilled to connect with their > British cousins and trace their ancestors to their origins. (But, the > feeling may not be reciprocated. See below.) > > Corresponding with the English representative of FTDNA help > lay out some > difficulties: > > 1. English Taylors are less interested in connecting with > American cousins > than their British ones. Getting British connections would be > possible only > with greater UK participation -- a "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. > > 2. They are more suspicious of DNA testing than Americans > seemingly are;; > it's seen in a negative -- or at best, neutral -- light. > Perhaps, "genetic > genealogy" doesn't appeal to them as much. > > 3. DNA testing costs more than other aspects of genealogy and > this may be > more of an issue in the UK. Subsidizing at least part of the cost was > suggested, but our project fund could buy a few tests at most -- as I > suspect other projects' funds could. We'd need a fund-raising effort. > > What wasn't mentioned is that, perhaps, our American attitudes and > approaches are ill-suited to the British culture. (I thank him for his > politeness.) > > It was suggested that posting on British genealogy forums > could help. Have > any tried this? Did it help? > > Any thoughts? > -ralph > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Ralph - My project is still new and very small, but I have intended to do this. I obtained permission from a local history association in the area I'm most interested in to post on their messageboard, but at the same time I got negative feedback from people in the US who've recruited UK participants. Hearing that men would/might expect to be paid something in addition to the free Y67 test made me wonder if I could really afford to do this on my own. My plan was to find one person with our surname who was interested in family history and ask if there is another family they've wondered if they were related to - then offer to test both. There's also something that you alluded to - more than one person told me I needed to be very careful about how I worded the offer to avoid offending prospective participants. I haven't totally given up on the idea, so I'd like to hear any success stories people have to offer. Sharon On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> wrote: > Are other surname projects having difficulty in getting significant > participation in their names' countries of origin? Have any cracked the > nut? > > > I'd be interested in observations & ideas on the subject. > > In Taylor Family Genes, we have only 5 members from the UK out of 374 > total. > For a (mostly) British-origin surname, that's embarrassing. We'd like to at > least reduce the level of embarrassment. > > We also have a few in Australia, Canada & New Zealand -- along with a > smattering of other countries. > > I imagine our present members would be thrilled to connect with their > British cousins and trace their ancestors to their origins. (But, the > feeling may not be reciprocated. See below.) > > Corresponding with the English representative of FTDNA help lay out some > difficulties: > > 1. English Taylors are less interested in connecting with American cousins > than their British ones. Getting British connections would be possible only > with greater UK participation -- a "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. > > 2. They are more suspicious of DNA testing than Americans seemingly are;; > it's seen in a negative -- or at best, neutral -- light. Perhaps, "genetic > genealogy" doesn't appeal to them as much. > > 3. DNA testing costs more than other aspects of genealogy and this may be > more of an issue in the UK. Subsidizing at least part of the cost was > suggested, but our project fund could buy a few tests at most -- as I > suspect other projects' funds could. We'd need a fund-raising effort. > > What wasn't mentioned is that, perhaps, our American attitudes and > approaches are ill-suited to the British culture. (I thank him for his > politeness.) > > It was suggested that posting on British genealogy forums could help. Have > any tried this? Did it help? > > Any thoughts? > -ralph > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Are other surname projects having difficulty in getting significant participation in their names' countries of origin? Have any cracked the nut? I'd be interested in observations & ideas on the subject. In Taylor Family Genes, we have only 5 members from the UK out of 374 total. For a (mostly) British-origin surname, that's embarrassing. We'd like to at least reduce the level of embarrassment. We also have a few in Australia, Canada & New Zealand -- along with a smattering of other countries. I imagine our present members would be thrilled to connect with their British cousins and trace their ancestors to their origins. (But, the feeling may not be reciprocated. See below.) Corresponding with the English representative of FTDNA help lay out some difficulties: 1. English Taylors are less interested in connecting with American cousins than their British ones. Getting British connections would be possible only with greater UK participation -- a "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. 2. They are more suspicious of DNA testing than Americans seemingly are;; it's seen in a negative -- or at best, neutral -- light. Perhaps, "genetic genealogy" doesn't appeal to them as much. 3. DNA testing costs more than other aspects of genealogy and this may be more of an issue in the UK. Subsidizing at least part of the cost was suggested, but our project fund could buy a few tests at most -- as I suspect other projects' funds could. We'd need a fund-raising effort. What wasn't mentioned is that, perhaps, our American attitudes and approaches are ill-suited to the British culture. (I thank him for his politeness.) It was suggested that posting on British genealogy forums could help. Have any tried this? Did it help? Any thoughts? -ralph

> -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:00 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Which mutation > path is morelikely? > > What little I know about this "mystery marker" CDY (a & b) > comes from a bit of research to answer your query. It boils > down to: > 1. CDY is a multi-copy marker (Thus, "a" & "b".) Yes, that's correct. > 2. It is highly volatile, subject to more frequent mutation > (as demonstrated here). Yes, that's correct, too. It's said DYS464 is the most volatile marker. If so, CDY must be a close second. > 3. It is equally likely to move in either direction (up or down). In general, yes. If the number is "high" it is more likely to go down. If "low" it's more likely to go up. But this usually isn't the case because it's mostly moving up and down in the mid-range of values. > 4. It is "palindromic". (Which, if I guess correctly, means > it reads the same way forward & backward.) Yes. Wikipedia has a nice explanation and illustration of palindromic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindromic_sequence > If anyone has better knowledge, please step in. I'm wondering whether: > A. CDYa & CDYb have constant places on the Y-chromosome? Yes. The "Marker" is the name of the location or "locus" (plural loci). The actual address of the locus on the chromosome is called its "cytogenic location," which is given as the chromosome number, arm, and band number(s); however, you won't find genealogists using these. > B. The stepwise or infinite alleles mutation models are more > appropriate? First, a quick explanation of what the two models mean because the names make them sound more exotic than they really are. The "infinite alleles" model assumes all mutations are equal, so it's simply a count of matching markers. It's what we're doing when we say two people match 35/37. However... The 35/37 figure may be deceiving in that while they match on 35 markers, the mismatch on the other two may be more than one count each. For example, the difference at one marker may be one and at the other marker may be two. Therefore the GD (genetic distance) between the two individuals may actually be three, not just two. As you can see, a problem with the infinite allele model is that it may *underestimate* the true genetic difference. The stepwise method takes into account, not just that the values at a particular marker are different, but *how* different they are. In its simplest form, you assume every change in the count is a single-step mutation. The case above giving a GD of three is an example of one-step, symmetrical (equal chance of up or down) method, where each change in a count is considered a separate mutation event. One problem with assuming every one-step change is a separate mutation event is that you may *overestimate* the true genetic difference. While most mutations events are, indeed, one-step (ca. 98%), a small percentage (ca. 2%) may be two-step, plus there may be other kinds of mutation events that can't be scored by simple counting (e.g., recLOH -- a recombinant loss of heterozygosity). Palindromic markers are particularly prone to multi-step mutation events and recLOHs. So, in casual conversation, I'm apt to say something like, "these cousins have a 65/67 match" (infinite allele model). However, when it comes to seriously assessing their relationship, I will use the stepwise method, including the assessment of any possible multi-step mutations, and say something like, "These cousins have a genetic distance of 3 at 67 markers." Bottom line: you use both, but the important one is the stepwise model. In genealogical time frames, the two methods will often yield the same result, that is, cousins who are a 35/37 match will have a GD of 2 (because they have two one-step mutations). You just need to be aware that there are situations where that is not the case. > C. FTDNA reporting might not be similar to 464a-d, where "a" > is always the lowest count found regardless of location? > ("464a" for one may be "464b" for another.) The "a" and "b", etc., do not refer to the locations of the individual 464 alleles; we don't know their individual locations. By convention, the alleles are simply reported lo-hi. The same is true of the other multicopy markers. In the case of DYS385a/b, the order can be ascertained with a Kittler test. > I was wrong about one thing, at least: No one addressed the > above statements or questions with this marker. I was hoping > to hide my ignorance <G> and maybe learn something. > > And that may help explain why your earlier query didn't > receive a response. Most people are reluctant to answer, > "Beats the heck out of me." Puzzlement doesn't easily > convert to words. The questions you asked are quite technical and have taken me a long time to answer, which is probably the reason you didn't get a lot of responses. It's often better to ask one question at a time. > Statistical note: With a sample of 35,36,37 (n=3) -- the mean > is 36 and the standard error is 1. That would put the 90% > confidence limit (CL) for the value in the range of 35 to 37 > & 95% CL in the 34-38 range. A sample of three individuals is too small for any statistics about them to be meaningful. Keep in mind, always, that mutations are random, and random is the opposite of even. IMO, it is simply not ever going to be the case, when working with single families in genealogical time, where statistics are going to be of any practical use, beyond ruling out the impossible. I discuss this further on this page: http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml > I still can't say which of the two scenarios you presented is > more likely. Does it make a real difference? Or, is it one of > those "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" > questions. My take: Call the bet a draw and buy each other > beers. For the genealogist, it definitely makes a difference. Genealogists are trying to strengthen their pedigrees, not weaken them. Diana

Diana asked: "You've got me with the acronyms, Ralph. Can you please tell me what CMA, GGS, and GTF stand for?" CMA = Common male ancestor (not necessarily the most recent) GGS = Great-grandson (here, man born 1822, not man born 1658 or 1965) GTF = Genealogical time frame (generally, since 1350 AD though exceptions exist) -rt_/) [AKA Ralph]

Gregory wrote, "I left out a lot of the detail you are asking for to make it easier to understand. I had posted the same question in greater detail on dna-forums.org, and got no responses. My suspicion was that people did not respond because it was too complicated. So it appears you can't win." Thank you for supplying the "how you know" information for John Francis, b. 1658, to have had CDYb=35. However, it seems that you don't really have enough data to make a confident estimate. If, as implied, the Rose results represent a NPE (non-parental event), their data suggests a different value. Diana suggested testing more cousins and that's probably the best answer. (I think you need many.) She also said the more likely scenario isn't necessarily what actually happened and that's good, too. "Likelihood" is always based on what we know and can change with more knowledge. What little I know about this "mystery marker" CDY (a & b) comes from a bit of research to answer your query. It boils down to: 1. CDY is a multi-copy marker (Thus, "a" & "b".) 2. It is highly volatile, subject to more frequent mutation (as demonstrated here). 3. It is equally likely to move in either direction (up or down). 4. It is "palindromic". (Which, if I guess correctly, means it reads the same way forward & backward.) If anyone has better knowledge, please step in. I'm wondering whether: A. CDYa & CDYb have constant places on the Y-chromosome? B. The stepwise or infinite alleles mutation models are more appropriate? C. FTDNA reporting might not be similar to 464a-d, where "a" is always the lowest count found regardless of location? ("464a" for one may be "464b" for another.) I was wrong about one thing, at least: No one addressed the above statements or questions with this marker. I was hoping to hide my ignorance <G> and maybe learn something. And that may help explain why your earlier query didn't receive a response. Most people are reluctant to answer, "Beats the heck out of me." Puzzlement doesn't easily convert to words. Statistical note: With a sample of 35,36,37 (n=3) -- the mean is 36 and the standard error is 1. That would put the 90% confidence limit (CL) for the value in the range of 35 to 37 & 95% CL in the 34-38 range. I still can't say which of the two scenarios you presented is more likely. Does it make a real difference? Or, is it one of those "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" questions. My take: Call the bet a draw and buy each other beers. -rt_/) [AKA -ralph]

Good point. I didn't have any plans to present my scenario as fact, only the most likely scenario. /***********************************************************************************/ One thing to keep in mind: the most probable scenario isn't necessarily what actually happened. The only way to really know what happened is to test cousins until you've located the mutations. Diana

The more markers you test and the more family members you test, the more likely you are to find mutations that unite branches of the family, but it is purely a matter of chance whether you will find any. I wouldn't want to promise anyone what the results of further testing might be. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:27 PM > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] "Parsing" > > Gang, I've got a very homogeneous R1b1b2 family at 37 markers > for all 16 members. > > I've just succeeded in prying a 10,000 person GEDCOM out of > them, which covers half the family, and am working on > obtaining the other brother's descendancy as well. > > We've got ten American generations, more or less, to work > with, beginning c. 1730. > > If they can be persuaded to extend to 67 markers, we should > be able to see some branching, shouldn't we? > > > Lisa >

Hi, My second cousin's (LaCours) results just came in from 23andme with the Haplogroup of R1b1b2a1a2. I have looked in my usual spots and am having trouble finding much info on it. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks, CeCe

One thing to keep in mind: the most probable scenario isn't necessarily what actually happened. The only way to really know what happened is to test cousins until you've located the mutations. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Gregory Francis > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:40 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Which mutation path is more likely? > <snip> > > Personally, I think it is much more likely that Theodore was > a 37 than a 36. Although both the 36 and 37 scenarios contain > 3 mutations on cdy-b, I mistrust the parallel mutation > scenario that is implied if Theodore were a 36. In a parallel > mutation scenario, the exact same mutation must occur exactly > the same way in two individuals in different lines. In other > words, the mutations must occur on the exact same marker and > in the same direction. If these mutations are truly random, a > scenario including parallel mutations seems far less likely > than one in which the same number of mutations occur in the same line. > > I hope this has cleared things up a bit. Please let me know > if you think I've missed something. > >

Nice to have the mystery solved -- and for the answer to make sense! > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Karen Johnson > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:23 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Two Questions (Diana Gale Matthiesen) > > Diana, > > FYI you were right, after he request information again, > FT has changed Alan's results to L21. > > Karen > > > >Well, that would give you the answer as to exactly what is happening > >with L21... > > >

Gang, I've got a very homogeneous R1b1b2 family at 37 markers for all 16 members. I've just succeeded in prying a 10,000 person GEDCOM out of them, which covers half the family, and am working on obtaining the other brother's descendancy as well. We've got ten American generations, more or less, to work with, beginning c. 1730. If they can be persuaded to extend to 67 markers, we should be able to see some branching, shouldn't we? Lisa

Ralph, Thanks for the well thought-out response. I left out a lot of the detail you are asking for to make it easier to understand. I had posted the same question in greater detail on dna-forums.org, and got no responses. My suspicion was that people did not respond because it was too complicated. So it appears you can't win. We believe the man (John Francis) who was born in 1658 to have had 35 repeats at cdy-b because a) He had six sons who had children, and descendants of three (Robert,Joseph and Daniel) have been tested. The descendants of Robert and Daniel have cdy-b = 35. The man born in 1822(Theodore Francis), the 36 and 37s are all descendants of Joseph. b) Additionally, there is another family with a different surname (Rose) that is obviously related to ours. It lived in the same Connecticut town in the 1600s and has an identical modal haplotype at 37 markers (assuming ours is cdy-b=35). I believe there are 8 or 9 members of that family group who have been tested and all are cdy-b = 35. Based on this, we think it is probable that John Francis was cdy-b =35. Yes, he could have been 36, 37 or something else, but given a&b above, we think that cdy-b is, by far, the most likely scenario and that there were mutations down the line. So the question becomes, where did the mutations occur? Theodore Francis is the MRCA of the three individuals who were tested. While it is possible that he was a 35, that would imply parallel mutations to 36 in 3 different lines and further parallel mutations to 37 in two different lines. That seems wildly implausible to me. If Theodore Francis was a 36, that would mean the line had only undergone one mutation between the birth of Joseph Francis (1698) and the birth of Theodore in 1822. However, it would imply parallel mutations from 36 to 37 in two different lines. On the other hand, if Theodore was a 37, that would mean the line would have had to have gone from 35 to 37 between 1698 and 1822, but it would only imply one mutation after Theodore's time, and does not require parallel mutations. Personally, I think it is much more likely that Theodore was a 37 than a 36. Although both the 36 and 37 scenarios contain 3 mutations on cdy-b, I mistrust the parallel mutation scenario that is implied if Theodore were a 36. In a parallel mutation scenario, the exact same mutation must occur exactly the same way in two individuals in different lines. In other words, the mutations must occur on the exact same marker and in the same direction. If these mutations are truly random, a scenario including parallel mutations seems far less likely than one in which the same number of mutations occur in the same line. I hope this has cleared things up a bit. Please let me know if you think I've missed something. Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS Which mutation path is more likely? To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <5154D39393C748EDBD0A14512F695DE4@Ralphs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Gregory wrote: "Please help settle a dispute. "1. A man born in 1658 has 35 repeats at cdy-b. His great-great-grandson born in 1822 has mutated up to 37 repeats at cdy-b. The second man's great-great-grandson born in 1965 has back-mutated to 36 repeats at cdy-b, while two other descendants (one through a different son of the man born in 1822, one through the same) still have 37. "2. The same man born in 1658 still has 35 repeats at cdy-b, but this time his great-great-grandson born in 1822 has only 36 repeats at cdy-b. Two of his descendants through different sons both mutate independently to 37, while a third remains at 36." Others will, no doubt, address the volatility, multi-copy & palindromic aspects of CDY (AKA, DSY724), as well as the reporting of CYDa & CDYb. I'll focus on the epistemology. It is important _HOW_ you "know" the posited values (for CMA b.1658 & GGS b.1822). The dispute may be an artifact of over-interpreting; both scenarios (and others) are plausible. The most likely scenario is not included above; it is that CMA b.1685, & GGS b.1822, had values found in descendants. The men born in 1658 & 1822 can not have been alive in the 21st century for actual Y-DNA testing. Without testing, we can not state their CDY values with any certainty. What can really be known here are the values for the men tested -- i.e., CDYb=37 for two & CDYb=36 for another. Assuming this is the only marker where mismatches are found, it is highly probable that the three men share a CMA within GTF and that that CMA had CDY values of either. As to "back-mutated", this term must be hypothetical or a conclusion. Perhaps, you've "triangulated" (with other descendants) to estimate CDYb values of b.1658 & b.1822. This method yields only probabilistic estimates, with confidence limits unknown to us readers. Conclusion: Neither mutation scenario is more likely than the other on the data provided -- the basis for assumed data is unstated. More likely than either is that CMA b.1658 & GGS b.1822 had CDYb=36 or CDYb=37. -rt_/) AKA, ralph