Diana, Sorry, but I forgot to mention that the three SNPs following L21 were on the Haplotree and not on the Screen Print. My e-mail from K9HKQ (Alan) tells me that he first contacted FTDNA because of the delay in results. They told him that some of the results were inconclusive and had to be re-done. Their reply mentioned that some SNPs were pending (L21was listed among them) The reply to his asking about L21 said that they were presently working on U152. But on the final results L21 is missing. Thanks Diana, I appreciate your input. Karen >Diana, > >Yes all three were recently done, 2 in 1 batch, and the 3rd in the >following batch. > >K9HKQ (Alan) sent me a screen shot of his results. They checked a total of 22 >SNP's. FT had trouble with some of them and re-did them. L21 is not >listed as >one of the SNP's tested but the three following it are listed as negative. > >None of these three men can prove a relationship on paper, but were hoping to >be able to prove it with DNA. > >Karen > > > >1. If you walk down the Y-DNA haplotree, from the top, you will > see that L23 > >appears before L21. > >http://dgmweb.net/DNA/SNPcharts/R1b_2010-02-12.shtml > > > >2. It would be extraordinary, even in subclades of haplogroup R, > >for members of > >the same family who are matching at levels of 65/67 and 66/67 to be > >in different > >subclades. Are you certain all three were tested recently? If > >K9HKQ was tested > >some time ago, it might have been before the L21 test was being offered. > > > >If you are in a position to check the member page of K9HKQ, I would > >double-check > >to see if L21 is really L21- or if it simply hasn't been tested > >yet. If it has > >been tested, and the result is negative, I would contact FTDNA and > ask them to > >retest K9HKQ for L21 and explain the reason he should be L21+. > > > >As for the differences at 464 and CDY, these would be typical for > near family > >members as those are probably the most volatile of all markers in > the standard > >67. > > > >Diana