Hi Sam, OK, I stand corrected, R1b1b2, not R1b. However, speaking personally, I would always want to be deep SNP tested. If everyone *deduces* their haplogroup from their haplotype, we are going to miss exceptions. It's akin to the question of which markers are "best." You don't know which markers are going to help you, until after you've tested them. You don't know, for certain, you didn't need the SNP test, until after you've taken it. Ditto a Kittler test. Most will be modal for their haplogroup, but you do get an occasional exception. I'm probably OC in this respect because I'm a (retired) scientist. If you wanted to publish a paper on these data, you couldn't use "assumed" values. You'd *have* to test. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of SVass > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:43 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > > > On Jun 12, 2010, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > > > I can answer part of your question, now, ... > > > > Anyone who is R1b should deep SNP test as far as they can > go, in part to eliminate matches by coincidence. There is at > least one case where two R1b > > individuals matched 60/67, but turned out, upon deep SNP > testing, to be in different R1b subclades. This problem of > coincidental haplotype matches in R1b > > is going to get worse as more people are tested. > > Let me first disagree with the above. Any one who is P297+ > (or as FTDNA calls it R1b1b2) should be SNP tested. Any of > my own R1b1-V88* precursor subclade does not need to do so if > they can find a close match at even 25 markers. At 67 > markers, we are at a genetic distance of 40 to 60 from the > P297+ group using the infinite allele model. > > For purposes of the roll call, I track several subclusters of > groups trying to estimate the date of origin for each group. > One is the one that VV calls R1b1a (V88+ M335-) Clusters B1, > B2, and B3 at his FTDNA website: > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/default.aspx > > The main other group(s) is the U152+, L4+ subgroup of R1b1b2. > I also have estimated the interclade age for the R1b1 Cohane group. > > I maintain private databases for each as these data are mined > from SMGF, FTDNA, Ancestry, and scientific papers. Note that > these contain primarily individuals with known Jewish or > probable converso ancestry. The coalescence and/or > interclade ages for each of these groups exceeds two thousand years. > I also maintain the JewishGen HSIG FTDNA site at FTDNA. > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Hungarian_SIG/default.aspx > > Sam Vass > C27F2 at ysearch and mitosearch > > > > ------------------------------- > 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've been reading this and other threads on SNP testing with interest. We have over 30 in our close-knit I2b1-Continental 2a group of Johnstons in Poldean and over 70 in our "greater" group of Cousins. I called FTDNA and asked if they could recommend any additional tests to assist us in grouping our Y-DNA Cousins. I was told that we should save our money as they don't have anything that definative for us, yet. I'll concede that the I haplogroup is not as "congested" as the R haplogroup, but I do wonder about the value of all of the deep SNP testing that I read about people doing... Cliff. Johnston "May the best you've ever seen, Be the worst you'll ever see;" from A Scots Toast by Allan Ramsay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > Hi Sam, > > OK, I stand corrected, R1b1b2, not R1b. However, speaking personally, I > would > always want to be deep SNP tested. If everyone *deduces* their haplogroup > from > their haplotype, we are going to miss exceptions. > > It's akin to the question of which markers are "best." You don't know > which > markers are going to help you, until after you've tested them. You don't > know, > for certain, you didn't need the SNP test, until after you've taken it. > Ditto a > Kittler test. Most will be modal for their haplogroup, but you do get an > occasional exception. > > I'm probably OC in this respect because I'm a (retired) scientist. If you > wanted to publish a paper on these data, you couldn't use "assumed" > values. > You'd *have* to test. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of SVass >> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:43 PM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2010, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: >> >> > I can answer part of your question, now, ... >> > >> > Anyone who is R1b should deep SNP test as far as they can >> go, in part to eliminate matches by coincidence. There is at >> least one case where two R1b >> > individuals matched 60/67, but turned out, upon deep SNP >> testing, to be in different R1b subclades. This problem of >> coincidental haplotype matches in R1b >> > is going to get worse as more people are tested. >> >> Let me first disagree with the above. Any one who is P297+ >> (or as FTDNA calls it R1b1b2) should be SNP tested. Any of >> my own R1b1-V88* precursor subclade does not need to do so if >> they can find a close match at even 25 markers. At 67 >> markers, we are at a genetic distance of 40 to 60 from the >> P297+ group using the infinite allele model. >> >> For purposes of the roll call, I track several subclusters of >> groups trying to estimate the date of origin for each group. >> One is the one that VV calls R1b1a (V88+ M335-) Clusters B1, >> B2, and B3 at his FTDNA website: >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/default.aspx >> >> The main other group(s) is the U152+, L4+ subgroup of R1b1b2. >> I also have estimated the interclade age for the R1b1 Cohane group. >> >> I maintain private databases for each as these data are mined >> from SMGF, FTDNA, Ancestry, and scientific papers. Note that >> these contain primarily individuals with known Jewish or >> probable converso ancestry. The coalescence and/or >> interclade ages for each of these groups exceeds two thousand years. >> I also maintain the JewishGen HSIG FTDNA site at FTDNA. >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Hungarian_SIG/default.aspx >> >> Sam Vass >> C27F2 at ysearch and mitosearch >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Haplogroup R1b (rather, R1b1b2) is a special case because it is so common. But even there, after one member of a family has tested, I usually don't recommend more members of the same family do so. In other haplogroups there may be less reason to test. However... I just had a person test who turns out to have a new mtDNA SNP mutation somewhere between himself and his grandmother! You just don't know until you test... Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:23 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call > > I've been reading this and other threads on SNP testing with > interest. We > have over 30 in our close-knit I2b1-Continental 2a group of > Johnstons in > Poldean and over 70 in our "greater" group of Cousins. I > called FTDNA and > asked if they could recommend any additional tests to assist > us in grouping > our Y-DNA Cousins. I was told that we should save our money > as they don't > have anything that definative for us, yet. > > I'll concede that the I haplogroup is not as "congested" as the R > haplogroup, but I do wonder about the value of all of the > deep SNP testing > that I read about people doing... > > Cliff. Johnston

I willl dig up some facts but R1b1b2 is truly congested. Deep clade R testing is a must unless a brother or male cousin has already done so. With the FTDNA's prediction system, if you are predicted R1b1 or R1b1b2 you should deep clade test. Of course STR testing is even more important. Sorry but R1b1b2 should go to 67 markers. Do this before deep clade testing IMHO. Mike W On 6/12/10, Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> wrote: > Haplogroup R1b (rather, R1b1b2) is a special case because it is so common. > But > even there, after one member of a family has tested, I usually don't > recommend > more members of the same family do so. In other haplogroups there may be > less > reason to test. However... > > I just had a person test who turns out to have a new mtDNA SNP mutation > somewhere between himself and his grandmother! You just don't know until > you > test... > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Cliff. Johnston >> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:23 PM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Roll Call >> >> I've been reading this and other threads on SNP testing with >> interest. We >> have over 30 in our close-knit I2b1-Continental 2a group of >> Johnstons in >> Poldean and over 70 in our "greater" group of Cousins. I >> called FTDNA and >> asked if they could recommend any additional tests to assist >> us in grouping >> our Y-DNA Cousins. I was told that we should save our money >> as they don't >> have anything that definative for us, yet. >> >> I'll concede that the I haplogroup is not as "congested" as the R >> haplogroup, but I do wonder about the value of all of the >> deep SNP testing >> that I read about people doing... >> >> Cliff. Johnston > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Sent from my mobile device

I'm a retired businessman, living in Australia, who worked in management for companies from small locals to major transnationals. I started researching my maternal family history back in 1974 (when I was living in the UK) initially from a grandmother's (b. 1898) memories, followed up with visits to church and regional archives and also purchased BMD certificates. Then, my inquiries stalled for 25 years till semi-retirement in 2000 gave me the time to continue my research. Last August, I became founder admin of the Claypoole/Claypole/Claypool/Cleypole and other variations surname project which already appears to have blown one assumption out of the water - ie the vast majority of American Claypooles/Claypools are descended from one of two migrant brothers, namely James Claypoole, 1634-1687, an early settler in Philadelphia and his brother, Norton Claypoole, 1640-1689, who settled near Lewes, Sussex Co, Delaware. As noted, this project is only 10 months old and has tested but 6 members, plus extended a previously deceased member's 37 marker results to 67 markers. Of those seven, four tests yielded 'closely related' 64/67 matches but the three other results don't come near to the 'closely related' group or indeed, to each other. Six of the seven are R1b1b2. The 'closely related' group probably descends from the above migrant brothers, as we have one member of this group with a well proven paper genealogy back to James Claypoole, 1634-1687. 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

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 >