开云体育

Iain, A very minor historical point regarding your paper. I think FTDNA released the Big Y-700 around the end of 2018. They upgraded Big Y results to Big Y-500 in 2018. A member of my project ordered

Dear Iain I am very pleased you continue to give this whole area your considered expertise. Whilst I have considerable empathy with your desires here, I do think there has to be a quiet revolution

Dear all, ? I've begun to look again in earnest at the phylogeography of R-U106. To begin that, I've started some ground-work. A new PDF on my website

https://omniletters.com/researchers-uncover-potential-new-ancient-human-species/ Dan D

Kevin, FTDNA Project Administrators are not allowed to divulge names, or kit numbers for testers listed on those reports beyond the limits of what you can see on your own match lists. There are also

Kevin, I think the nature of the report might have been misrepresented to you. The "Y-DNA Genetic Distance” report available group administrators only shows the GD between group members, which is

Will an administrator of this group make available to a tester the Y DNA genetic distance report for the tester? This? report that is accessible to the administrators of this group. It shows matches

The “missing kits” problem is identified by FTDNA as affecting customers with autosomal transfers. Vincent Vizachero sent from my iPhone

If anyone wants to go back to the original style charts (classic) here is the link https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults You can check for missing kits if you like. In my surname

Thanks Vince, ? To expand on "may not be in their exact positions": ? It can be that mutations are only recorded in some tests both not others. This could be because some tests are the

As an addition to this even a member that is pending lab results that had already tested to 111 has disappeared [email protected]> wrote:

It appears in our surname project anyone with big y has disappeared from the spreadsheets and results pages but they appear to be their in member subgrouping [email protected]> wrote:

Vincent, Thanks for the reply. I was basing my info on comments from an administrator on another group, which is neither here nor there. As for aDNA transfers, I did have results transferred in from

I don’t think the B-series kits are especially affected. My projects have many B…. kits still visible. The prevailing theory is that the bug affects mainly kits with autosomal transfers, and I

I saw on another group that the DNA spreadsheets have changed, and strangely those with kit numbers beginning with "B" have dropped off. As one who has been affected by this, does anyone have an idea

Lain, Thanks. P. Turnbow [email protected]> wrote:

Iain, I totally agree with your assessment, although I think the phrase "may not be in their exact positions" might be expanded. When we were building the ISOGG tree in the past we would sometimes

That depends on what you mean by &quot;reliable&quot;. It is highly accurate, but incomplete. If you read point (1) on my recently posted message #8352 </g/R1b-U106/message/8352> ,

Thanks Shane, This Yfull subclade BY127454 has 6 of 7 SNPs found in FTDNA BY122236. We can now assume that Y340824 includes at least BY122236, BY11544 and your own line, Shane, among R-FGC17460

Bertram & Iain, Thanks Iain. I have been tracking the live sessions on Yfull over a few days. Currently the Romanian kit is now in another subclade BY127454. And Y340824 is now Y340824*. Maybe that's