开云体育

Thank you very much Ray for noting this and for updating your spreadsheet.? Crossing my fingers on a couple of the Z7 samples. I thought you missed a Z7

There are several very old Z18 individuals in this paper, with five of them dated to roughly 2000 BCE. Once the raw data becomes available, these individuals bear a closer look, to see whether they

Hi folks, There are some interesting results here for us. Whether fortunate or not, there's nothing immediately ground-breaking that leaps out at me - that's good, because it means the new results

Hi Ray, all, Thank you Ray for sharing such a promising paper (with R-U106+ aDNAs in poorly documented countries like France...). It seems to me that BAM/fastq files are not (yet) available. It is

Ray et al: I see that I (FTDNA kit 246858 U106/L44) match your entry on line 365 for WPK005 (also U106/L44) . All comments and insights welcome. Richard W Youatt FTDNA Kit 246858 Sent: Friday, March

One of the individuals (CGG106838) from Kaarebjerg Agre, T?rslev Hage, Gerlev Sogn, Zealand, Denmark dates back to just before the RISE98 individual. This new individual falls under

Raymond,HADO18 was not U106>Y19781. He was L21. Ciarán

here wrote:

ray, this looks like the motherlode. thanks for posting. by the way, do you still maintain the plot of samples? I have lost the URL. cheers, Roy

A new paper came out in pre-print: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1.full.pdf It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+

Extraordinary. But it's a comfortingly familiar story of folk 'subject to intra-settlement mechanisms for reconciling interests and redistributing surpluses that might have been established

Hi Ciarán and all. I too have done the upgrade and am under S5520. Not just me, but 9 or 10 McMillans under FGC11674/FGC11696 and its parent FGC11665. While I agree with Dr McDonald's views on this,

There are no more matches on my kit at YFull probably because the terminal snp is at Y7378 (above what FTdna has as the final), but it's interesting to see the number of snps that are now 'positive'

| SNPs (all): | 403261 | | | Positive: | 2246?(0.56%) | | | Negative: | 14766?(3.66%) | | | Ambiguous: | 15?(0.00%) | | | No call: | 3843?(0.95%) | This is from my T2T upgrade | SNPs (all): |

Did a BigY about ten days ago. I look forward to the results! Best regards,

Kevin I have seven more private YSNPs from the upgrade. That's a total of 12 YSNPs that are specific to my Y line. I will have to wait until Yfull updates their tree to see if it makes a difference to

Thanks Kevin.

Thanks again Dr. McDonald for your input.? So while I can conclude that R-A321 is a Campsie parish snp, any thoughts on prior history will have to wait until one of the gap snps pop up in an ancient

Hi Ciarán Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43

Hello KevinI am interested in this upgrade. Have you learned anything? Is it worth it? Ciarán