REF1: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:52:10 -0500, Diana Gale Matthiesen, "Re: Interesting Situation." REF2: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:05:44+0000, James Irvine, "Making matches, crossing the Pond." REF3: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:00:31 -0700, Ralph Taylor, "Re: Making matches, crossing the Pond." REF4: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:18:32 -0000, Debbie Kennett, "Re: Making matches, crossing the Pond." Following is a reply to the above referenced posts to the list. This is not a reply to several later posts to the list on the same subjects. Hello All, As Administrator of the Stark Family Y-DNA Project, I've had the good fortune to have the support of many excellent genealogists to prove the paper trails of our participants. In addition to their excellent efforts, one Stark descendant is not only an excellent genealogist, but also has a PhD in Genetics. This combination of support has really been beneficial. My Administrator Web Site can be found at URL http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~clovis/Y-DNA%20Home.htm While I generally agree with the comments in the above referenced post to the list, I believe we all agree that group placement rules --- by their very nature --- are subjective, that is, they represent a denoted placement not necessarily based in fact, but as contingent or possible or viewed emotionally. Having said that, I have been following group placement rules and examples of their application can be found on my Web Site. However, I have not specifically stated them for my membership. I plan to now revise my web site. My thanks to those referenced above for illustrating the importance of stating group placement rules. My experience has been that group placement rules evolve as the number of participants in a project increase. I now have 11 groups, the placement rules variously different depending on the Stark Project objectives outlined for each group. The Stark Project presently has 65 processed Y-DNA kits, which is approximately the size of Diana's Straub surname project. Within several Groups, I have created subgroups for various reasons. I have 29 members of the project I've clustered into Group 1, this Group having 4 subgroups. For much of the following, if there is further interest, I suggest going to my three part in depth analysis of the test results of this group at URL http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~clovis/y-dnag1parti.htm This group, one of several, has sufficient genealogical and genetic evidence to warrant further analysis beyond a mere presentation of their genetic results. Those in Subgroups 1a (20) and 1b (6) have genealogical paper trails suggesting they are descendants of two brothers known to be sons of Aaron Stark, who, within the time frame of the "Puritan Great Migration Period" from England to New England between 1630 and 1640, has early records indicating he was a resident of Connecticut in the year 1637 and born in the year 1608 or "there abouts." Members (1) of Subgroup 1c have the surname Stark, have genetic comparisons to 1a and 1b suggesting Aaron could be their common ancestor, but no genealogy available. Members (2) of Subgroup 1d have genealogy suggesting they are descendants of Aaron Stark, but genetic results suggesting this cannot be possible. Members in this subgroup most likely have undocumented non-paternal events (NPE) within their lines of descent from Aaron. [This subgroup was created for reference to future project members who are descendants of a branch along the genealogical lineage of members of this group. Reason!! To possibly determine the generation or transmission event (TE) in which the NPE may have occurred.] These are the broad rules for subgroup placement WITHIN Group 1. The following presently applies to TIP group placement rules for Subgroups 1a and 1b based on my "observations" to date. Later exceptions to these rules may cause revisions if warranted. Tip Calculation Probability Rules 37 maker Tip Calculation Comparisons: Comparisons shall be made to the 37 Marker Modal Haplotype --- which is also equivalent to the Aaron Stark 37 Marker Ancestral Haplotype. [In these specific subgroups, six members of 1a and one member of 1b have 37/37 match ratios to the Modal Haplotype. Therefore, comparisons to one of these members is the same as a comparison to the Modal Haplotype. Comparisons of anyone of these seven members to each other results in the same TIP probability results.] Rule 1: Comparisons result in a 95% or greater probability those compared share a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) within 20 generations. [By observation of these groups, the lowest value has been 96%] Rule 2: Comparisons result in a 80% or greater probability those compared share an MRCA within the following generations: 10, 11, 12, 13. [Genealogical observations reveal the descendants of Aaron genetically evaluated are members of the 9th thru 12 generations relevant to Aaron's generation. Stated differently, a range of 9 to 12 transmission events (TEs) occurred along their respective genealogical lines from Aaron. The 80% value is based on TIP comparison observations.] Exceptions to these Rules: If a member fails Rule 1 or 2 when compared to the Modal haplotype, Rule 3 applies: Rule 3: If a participant with a genealogical paper trail suggesting he is a direct line male descendant of Aaron, FAILS Rule 1 or 2, his genetic distance from the Modal Haplotype will be determined. His genetic distance to other members of these subgroups will then be compared. If a lower genetic distance than that of the Modal Haplotype is determined in these genetic distance comparisons, then the FAILING member will be Tip compared to the member or members having the minimum genetic distance observed. If one of these comparisons passes Rule 1 or Rule 2, the member will then be placed in Subgroup 1a or 1b --- relevant to his genealogical paper trail. [I've not observed a failure of Rule 1, YET. My observations, so far, have resulted in one exception to Rule 2. The member had a genetic distance of three relevant to the Modal Haplotype, but had a genetic distance of two to another member who did not fail Rules 1 or 2. This other member had a genetic distance of one relevant to the Modal Haplotype. I believe FTDNA refers to this type of logic as "finding a person between to other comparisons to determine the relatedness of all three." In this particular exception to Rules 1 and 2, the person failing, when TIP compared according to Rule 3, had probability values of 86% he shared the MRCA within 11 generations.] I will be setting down similar rules for 12 marker and 25 marker Tip comparisons. These are just my ideas related to only one Group in my project and in particular only relevant to the 37 marker Tip Calculations. Several other project groups will have similar rules, but will have different parameters as a result of the generational differences in the Genealogical Paper Trails. Others are Haplogroup oriented. In the above Group 1 Analysis --- on page 7 --- you can see the results of the TIP calculations over 37 markers that are the "RAW" data establishing the Rules set down above. Again, my thanks to the above for discussing this issue. Clovis La Fleur