Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Hi Ian,
I think the FTDNA business model is brilliant, but not customer friendly. Once being in the insurance industry some things stand out. The most blaring is that I notice is that the bulk of their business comes from project administrators such as myself.?
I spent a ton of money, so much that I will refrain from lowballing the actual amount, just to get testers in the project and get it going. I¡¯m not the only one in my project to do the same thing. FTDNA didn¡¯t advertise on TV to get these testers.?
Project admins generally have a membership on a relevant FB page where we provide free advertising whenever there is a sale. We also encourage those that have tested to upgrade. We provide all of the legwork required to get these testers.?
My main point in all of this is FTDNA, in my opinion, has not had to spend much money in getting this business on their own. They¡¯re not out on a scale say Ancestry, 23andMe, MyHeritage, etc around the globe drawing in new testers. When was the last time you viewed a FTDNA advertisement on television??
And the technology has seemed to have stalled. Where are the new products development? I¡¯m seeing window dressing, bells and whistles, but nothing as far as actual new products to help us be more precise with our projects.?
I could go on but I¡¯ll stop my rant here. I¡¯m sure there is much more going on behind the scenes that is always top secret and little to no communication or input.?
- Joe
What would be interesting to see is that instead of the lower level STR tests, they use a chip assay with all the currently known Y chromosome SNPs. Assuming it would be a lot cheaper than the Big Y-700, it might be a lot easier to convince people to take the test. I had previously used the Y SNPs from the Ancestry DNA raw data to confirm that myself and a fellow that was believed to be related to confirm we were both at least Z-18. That combined with aDNA matches convinced me to shell out for both testing both of us. Had there been a chip assay that was available, I would have used that, and moved onto the Y-700 afterwards. I have had a rather hard time convincing others to get the Y-700, especially after they had spent a bunch on various STR levels, and were not impressed with how ¡°arcane¡± the results can be. ? ? ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Sprowl
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 11:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment ? Well that¡¯s all well and good but to Geoff¡¯s concern about marketing in Australia, I¡¯m not seeing where FTDNA is doing a whole lot globally to encourage testing. Some of the the gadgets you mention I find a bit gimmicky or redundant. What we really need are more testers and further research into refined DNA testing for genealogical purposes. For instance, I can¡¯t believe for a second that we¡¯re tapped out at BigY-700. I¡¯d like to know what the R&D department is working on to address this. ? With DNA testing, I think that two and a half years is an eternity.
Anyway, in that time the then new owners of FTDNA, have proved themselves to be very supportive of all things genealogical.
Think Michael Sager and the Y-DNA haplotree; Discover Haplotree Reports, and the Mitochondrial efforts (some yet to be realised).
This is exactly what Alan Greenspan promised at the time.
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
What would be interesting to see is that instead of the lower level STR tests, they use a chip assay with all the currently known Y chromosome SNPs. Assuming it would be a lot cheaper than the Big Y-700, it might be a lot easier to convince people to take the test. I had previously used the Y SNPs from the Ancestry DNA raw data to confirm that myself and a fellow that was believed to be related to confirm we were both at least Z-18. That combined with aDNA matches convinced me to shell out for both testing both of us. Had there been a chip assay that was available, I would have used that, and moved onto the Y-700 afterwards. I have had a rather hard time convincing others to get the Y-700, especially after they had spent a bunch on various STR levels, and were not impressed with how ¡°arcane¡± the results can be. ? ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Sprowl
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 11:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment ? Well that¡¯s all well and good but to Geoff¡¯s concern about marketing in Australia, I¡¯m not seeing where FTDNA is doing a whole lot globally to encourage testing. Some of the the gadgets you mention I find a bit gimmicky or redundant. What we really need are more testers and further research into refined DNA testing for genealogical purposes. For instance, I can¡¯t believe for a second that we¡¯re tapped out at BigY-700. I¡¯d like to know what the R&D department is working on to address this. ? With DNA testing, I think that two and a half years is an eternity.
Anyway, in that time the then new owners of FTDNA, have proved themselves to be very supportive of all things genealogical.
Think Michael Sager and the Y-DNA haplotree; Discover Haplotree Reports, and the Mitochondrial efforts (some yet to be realised).
This is exactly what Alan Greenspan promised at the time.
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
The DNA Geek blogger was about as wrong as you can get in their speculative 2021 article. The best evidence is all the genealogical support FTDNA provided with Discover, starting in 2022.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 9:27 PM Joe Sprowl < joesprowl@...> wrote: A DNA Geek blog post from April 6, 2021 leaves an impression of a future of FTDNA as a company with the genealogist in mind, a thing of the past.?
-Joe
One would think the new owners would want to pursue that, Geoff! Charles? ? Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Hi John,
Well that¡¯s all well and good but to Geoff¡¯s concern about marketing in Australia, I¡¯m not seeing where FTDNA is doing a whole lot globally to encourage testing. Some of the the gadgets you mention I find a bit gimmicky or redundant. What we really need are more testers and further research into refined DNA testing for genealogical purposes. For instance, I can¡¯t believe for a second that we¡¯re tapped out at BigY-700. I¡¯d like to know what the R&D department is working on to address this.
- Joe
Joe
With DNA testing, I think that two and a half years is an eternity. Anyway, in that time the then new owners of FTDNA, have proved themselves to be very supportive of all things genealogical. Think Michael Sager and the Y-DNA haplotree; Discover Haplotree Reports, and the Mitochondrial efforts (some yet to be realised). This is exactly what Alan Greenspan promised at the time. Kind regards John
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
I agree, but unfortunately they seem to have been very quiet on that front Geoff
One would think the new owners would want to pursue that, Geoff! Charles? ? Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Joe
With DNA testing, I think that two and a half years is an eternity. Anyway, in that time the then new owners of FTDNA, have proved themselves to be very supportive of all things genealogical. Think Michael Sager and the Y-DNA haplotree; Discover Haplotree Reports, and the Mitochondrial efforts (some yet to be realised). This is exactly what Alan Greenspan promised at the time. Kind regards John
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
? I hope they do! I have plenty of autosomal matches in Australia with my last name. Very possible it is some type of other connection, but generally McMillans from Argyll (where many of these Australians trace their ancestry too) are R-U106>FGC11674.?
We have a few YDNA participants from Australia. Not many.?
It seems the exchange rate is not favorable.? Robert McMillan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 22, 2023, at 9:07 PM, Charles via groups.io <cdmo29@...> wrote:
? One would think the new owners would want to pursue that, Geoff! Charles? On Oct 22, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Geoff blackburn <geoffrox08@...> wrote:
? Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
A DNA Geek blog post from April 6, 2021 leaves an impression of a future of FTDNA as a company with the genealogist in mind, a thing of the past.?
-Joe
One would think the new owners would want to pursue that, Geoff! Charles? ? Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
One would think the new owners would want to pursue that, Geoff! Charles?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 22, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Geoff blackburn <geoffrox08@...> wrote:
? Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Testers for 1000 Genome Project
However, does anyone know if there is a way to simply know what part of Great Britain a particular subject was from? I know the subject I'm interested in was part of the group "British from England and Scotland", but is there a way to find out if the subject was from southwest England or northern Scotland or some such general area? No, the subjects are de-identified as part of the human specimen protocols. I believe some like Steven Pinker have been disclosed however by combining databases. However, I don¡¯t recall if he¡¯s in the 1KG or just in Harvard¡¯s PGP project. James Kane
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Charles, As U106 representative, what would be good is more Australian testers which could be generated by some advertising in Australia.? I believe that FTDNA is now owned by MYDNA, a Melbourne, Australia based company so a bit of a focus here would seem to me to not be unreasonable. Yes, as an Australian U106 man, I declare a vested interest. regards Geoff
?This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants.? This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? ?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Testers for 1000 Genome Project
I know this is a long shot, given that the 1000 Genomes Project was an academic project with anonymous volunteer subjects.? However, does anyone know if there is a way to simply know what part of Great Britain a particular subject was from?? I know the subject I'm interested in was part of the group "British from England and Scotland", but is there a way to find out if the subject was from southwest England or northern Scotland or some such general area?
Thanks,
Ed
|
FTDNA Project Administraors Conference and Mayflower Society
I won't be able to attend this year's Conference in person, as it conflicts with the Maine Mayflower Society annual meeting. However, I have signed up for it virtually.
I am working with the General Society of Mayflower Descendants (GSMD) in an effort to get them to accept and utilize Y-DNA SNP information in membership applications. There are a number of individuals who cannot trace their patrilineal (direct male) line back to the Mayflower passenger, but their Y-DNA falls into a known SUBclade corresponding to SOME (but not all) of the Y-DNA descendants of a Mayflower passenger. I am not using the parent clade which the immigrant himself belongs to as it is quite possible he may have close male relatives (brothers, cousins, etc.) who would fall into the same clade, but not be a Mayflower Descendant.Using a subclade guarantees where the individual MUST descend from the Mayflower passenger (in a patrilineal line).
I am encountering more than a fair bit of resistance in this effort, but I am being persistant, and believe they will accept this eventually. Even their written policies dictate where their lineage verification standards cannot be any more strict than U.S. Court rulings regarding lineage verification. Since the court system has universally accepted DNA evidence, the GSMD own policy manual dictates where they MUST accept DNA evidence as well.
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
It¡¯s going to be different with the new ownership. ?We¡¯ll see just how different! Charles?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 22, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Wayne via groups.io <dna_wayne@...> wrote:
?
Charles,
Will you be able to see if the change in ownership is facilitating some "house cleaning" and cutting out some of the BS around how they deal with projects, data, and use of 3rd party results?? Time for them to offer a meaningful long read product.
Wayne
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 03:54:19 PM EDT, Charles via groups.io <cdmo29@...> wrote:
? This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants. ?This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE. Charles? On Oct 22, 2023, at 12:53 PM, ejsteele56@... wrote:
?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Charles,
Will you be able to see if the change in ownership is facilitating some "house cleaning" and cutting out some of the BS around how they deal with projects, data, and use of 3rd party results?? Time for them to offer a meaningful long read product.
Wayne
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 03:54:19 PM EDT, Charles via groups.io <cdmo29@...> wrote:
? This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants. ?This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE.
On Oct 22, 2023, at 12:53 PM, ejsteele56@... wrote:
?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
? This actually happens all the time, where someone more closely related, in this case to Jason, comes along and tests positive for Jason¡¯s previous haplogroup block, and the ancestral blocks above it, but ALSO tests positive for one or more of Jason¡¯s ?then current Private Variants. ?This is the actual process by which R-U106 has expanded to over 6,800 branches.
So, FTDNA creates the new subgroup on the Block Tree, and reduces Jason¡¯s Private Variants to those unmatched ones remaining.
Anyone out there with relatively close matches on your STR match lists who appear to be closer to you than whomever you created your current subgroup with, are encouraged to try to persuade your closer STR match to order Big Y during the upcoming holiday sales periods, so that you can likely accomplish this objective.
BTW, for the 13th time in a row, I will be representing R-U106 at the FTDNA Admin Conference in early November, and reporting the significant news to the group, HERE.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 22, 2023, at 12:53 PM, ejsteele56@... wrote:
?Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Re: Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Jason,
With just looking at the YDNA haplotree, it appears that you have been matched to another tester who is also positive for FTE23068.? I am assuming you recently took the BigY test and were initially placed in haplogroup FT304237, which is just one branch up from FTE23068.? If you look at your matches under the BigY results, and then click on the block tree, it will show you who you share haplogroup FTE23068 and in a week or so, the Discover Haplogroup Reports will likely also be updated to give you even more information about your new haplogroup.
Ed Steele
|
Question re: changes to haplogroup assignment
Hello everyone,
I logged into FamilyTreeDNA this morning and discovered my assigned haplogroup was changed from "FT304237" to "FTE23068". Are?these types of changes/updates common? What does this mean exactly (the website indicated that it may take several weeks for Haplogroup Reports to be available)?
?I am in the process of trying to figure out where my Johnson line originated from before coming to America (i.e. Netherlands, England, etc.). I am fairly new to all of this and trying to understand what this all means.
I appreciate your time and help! Jason
|
Good for you!? Every U106er will benefit from your results. Bernie Leopold
Good choice. :) On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 6:13 PM Michael Primm < mrprimm53@...> wrote: Thank you everybody for your input. I¡¯m diving into the BigY! ? Sent from for Windows ? ? Big Y ? I agree, dive in.? If your doing Y37 might as well go all-in with BigY
On Sunday, October 8, 2023, 3:17 PM, Mark Miller <fuddaruski@...> wrote: If you can afford it, dive in. ? On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 1:14 PM Michael Primm <mrprimm53@...> wrote: Has every one in this group taken the BigY? As I mentioned before, I haven't taken it yet. My question is, should I start with the Y37 first and work my way up, or just dive in with the BigY?
Thanks,
Mike
|
Sherri my result for DYS492 is 13 ¡
On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 9:14?PM Geoff blackburn < geoffrox08@...> wrote: Looking at the Public results page at the link you initially attached it would seem that Primm project is light on for Haplogroup R members - only 4 from 17 Prim/etc and variants surnames belong to that HG - the other Primm etc surnames are all HG "I"
most (but not quite all) people who are HG R and who turn out to be U106+ have 13 as the result at DYS492 (the 64th Marker).? The few HG "R" men in the Public Primm project all have the value 12 at that position.
What is your result for DYS492?
I am sure that the admins at the Primm project would be very happy to have you as a member.? It would be my first move. regards Geoff
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 06:58, Sherril Moore < me@...> wrote: FTDNA has a Ancestral Path tool:
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>U106>Z2265>BY30097>FTT8>Z381>Z301>L48>Z9>Z331>Z330>Z326>Z8168>FGC10367>Z319>Z8171>CTS2509>FGC363>FGC23165>FT74086>BY3730>Y132016
I believe Nebula and Yfull have a similar tool.
Sherril
Better yet, from your dashboard page at FTDNA, click on Results and Tools on the tools bar, then YDNA, then Haplotree & SNPs.? On that page there is a search field, Go to Branch Name.? Fill that with your SNP and it will display your entire path from R-M269. Bernie Leopold
|
Wayne