Yes, and there's some history behind that reason. In the beginning, FTDNA only offered 12 markers, then they began offering 25 markers, then 37, then 67. I don't have the dates when the increased numbers became available, but there were a lot of people tested before 37 markers became available. Another reason is that many people transfer in from the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, and to this day, they only test 12 markers. The question now is: Why haven't more of these people upgraded? Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of fenenga@connpoint.net > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 8:08 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > > > the number of people who only tested to 12 or 25 is incredible. they > are under the assumption that that is all that is needed. > > at 12 markers a single man matches perfectly with my > husband (who is > a Moore). the match's surname is not only different from my husband, > it's mainland European, Baltic, I believe. he does not match beyond > 12 markers. but he is a perfect match at 12 markers. no-one else > tested so far is. does that mean a perfect match at 12 markers is > indeed a perfect match? absolutely not. and 12 markers is a totally > uninformative test even for someone with a rare surname. > > at 12 markers with a distance of 1 are 22 individuals. some are > Moores, some are of other Scottish surnames. none are close cousins, > even at 11/12. > > at 25 markers with 2 distant, there are 4 men, 3 of > whom are Moores, > but not closely related even at 23/25. > > at 37 markers with 0 distance, there is one man, but > even though he > is 37/37, he is not a close cousin. > > at 37 markers with 4 distance, there are 10 matches. > they are not > close cousins. > > at 67 markers with 7 distance (yes, that far) there is > one man. he > is not a close cousin. > > all of these people aren't just distant cousins, they are very > distant cousins. why am I pointing this out? because on DYS 572, my > husband has a unique mutation. but you won't find out if you have > signature mutations if you don't test to 67 markers. there are people > with very common surnames that insist that it isn't necissary to test > beyond 25. every person who fails to test beyond 25 who has a fairly > common surname is not going to get all the information available or > match correctly-some people now in one group could actually belong to > a different group because 25 just doesn't give enough information. > > Cornelia > > >

67 markers were offered when I had my Y-DNA tested 5 years ago. There were 2 others at that time whom I matched closely who had had their 67 markers tested 2 years previously. So, we have at least 7 years for 67 markers being offered, possibly longer. This was when Y-DNA numbers for people who had been tested were still relatively low too. The NatGeo project gave great impetus to Y-DNA testing, and this is the reason for so many having only the 12-markers test. There was an "explosion" of interest in Y-DNA testing when NatGeo stepped up the gaming table. If the truth be known, I started with only 12 markers too, but more because it was a "shot in the dark" after some 2 decades of head-banging against the proverbial brickwall. When I found 4, instant, Y-DNA Cousins I upgraded to 67 markers. As more Y-DNA Cousins came on board it quickly became apparent that some of the "family branch" groupings that we were making based upon the advice of "experts" was simply off-base. Markers 38-67 we are finding to be "critical" in determining family branches. Forget the first 37 markers for trying to do this - exaggeration for effect. The most important thing to remember is that all mutations are "RANDOM". Tables giving average numbers of years for a mutation to occur at a given locus while interesting still need to be taken "under advisement" as we have several Cousins with 2 mutations within 3 generations or so. This makes me question the validity of the mutation tables...sometimes... Good hunting, Cliff. "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 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] testing to 67 markers > Yes, and there's some history behind that reason. In the beginning, FTDNA > only > offered 12 markers, then they began offering 25 markers, then 37, then 67. > I > don't have the dates when the increased numbers became available, but > there were > a lot of people tested before 37 markers became available. > > Another reason is that many people transfer in from the National > Geographic > Society's Genographic Project, and to this day, they only test 12 markers. > > The question now is: Why haven't more of these people upgraded? > > Diana >