|
Thanks Mike: 439106 is right below IN48416, with A1067 like all of them in that group.? But he is only 1 step away from IN48416 at 111, as I see it. In my mind it would be a shame to separate them.? I have many matches at 111, and the format ftdna uses on my personal Matches page is not conducive for easy comparisons for mobile phone use.? ?I'm not so much concerned -- in retrospect of above -- about who hasn't taken the Big Y, but rather who has. You may have answered this question before, but is there no easy way to mark a person as Big Y without moving close STR non-Big Y matches away from them? If so, that would be better.? I was just perusing through my Matches that have done BigY 5/700, and surprisingly, like IN48416, more than a few have stalled out at Z17815* with at least one each at A1075* and A1067*(IN48416). I had thought that the increased BigY testing wouldn't result in that, but it seems apparent that since the Son SNPs of Z17815 were born they have branched out and away from each other. I'm still sad about Alex's Tree becoming somewhat obselete and out of sync with FTDNA's SNP Tree, but it has big advantages still.? I think one can still send their BigY results to them and automatically get added to the Tree. Private SNPs can be seen in case someone wants to single test them. Also, it shows equivalent SNPs so that block ageing and TMRCA's can be roughly calculated.? The Big Tree is close to a one stop store for me -- in the past. Now, however, as more people don't use it, it's getting difficult to look at everything all at once. Yes, the other Martin is interesting. I'm way past due in working with them. It looks like we broke away from each other at the birth of A1067 Son SNPs. I'd like to respond to everyone that posted today, but it'll have to wait, as my brain works very slow especially if I'm writing a post.? ;-) Best, Daryl? On Mon, Aug 15, 2022, 7:46 PM Tiger Mike <mwwdna@...> wrote:
|
