More Ancient DNA ….

开云体育

Hello again

I hope you all have enjoyed a happy Christmas.

Here is another interesting article describing how autosomal DNA technologies, similar to those used by Ancestry and FTDNA Family Finder, can be applied to analysis of ancient populations?

Best wishes

Nigel

Re: People of Medieval Cambridge | After the Plague

#23

Both very interesting! ?Thanks, Nigel, and have a good new year in 2024 to the extent that remains possible. ?Steve Turner

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel B via groups.io (jnigelbond@...)
Date: 12/21/23 21:46
To: [email protected]
Subject: [s16264] People of Medieval Cambridge | After the Plague

Following my earlier note, more holiday reading - I hope this will be of interest too -



It is also worth exploring other pages on the ‘after the plague’ website.

Best wishes

Nigel

People of Medieval Cambridge | After the Plague

#22

Following my earlier note, more holiday reading - I hope this will be of interest too -

It is also worth exploring other pages on the ‘after the plague’ website.

Best wishes

Nigel

DNA sleuths solve mystery of the 2,000-year old corpse - BBC News

#21

Greetings fellow R-S16264s

I hope all is well with all of you.  

I continue to look out for potential new recruits to our group but little has changed over recent months and even years.  However the science continues to develop, particularly ancient DNA studies of human remains recovered during archaeological excavations.  The link below is a very interesting example of how much information can be recovered from just one ancient individual.  I hope you enjoy reading about him.

Best wishes to you and your families for the holiday season

Nigel

Re: FTDNA Discover Tree and Ancient DNA

#20

Thanks for this interesting info, Nigel!? No questions until I try to check it out as directed...? Steve

Show quoted text

From: Nigel B via groups.io (jnigelbond@...)
Date: 02/05/23 00:08
To: [email protected]
Subject: [s16264] FTDNA Discover Tree and Ancient DNA

Greetings S16264s

Sylvain Leprovost recently asked me whether FTDNA’s Discover Tree includes DNA recovered from ancient human remains found in archaeological investigations. ?I thought other S16264s might be interested too so am copying and expanding on my answers below:

Ancient human remains found in excavations are increasingly DNA tested if judged likely to have DNA preserved.? There have also been several special research projects which have DNA tested large numbers of individuals’ remains from museum collections. ?These individuals’ remains will also have been carbon-14 dated so providing a latest date by which the DNA SNPs found in the individual samples occurred for the first time. ?

FTDNA have included some ancient individuals in their Discover tree but not all.? To see some of them scroll up the Discover tree on your Discover Time Tree web page using the arrow next to R-S16264 and continue scrolling until you reach the page with R-DF13.? The brown trowel symbols are for ancient DNA.? Scroll down that webpage to see many more.? Note the branching SNP upstream of each individual is the youngest SNP found in their DNA: they may in life have carried more recent known branching SNPs but these were either not recovered from the sample or were not identified in the test.

Scrolling down you will see most ancient individual’s dates are more recent than the date of the branching SNP they are descended from. ?Occasionally some individual’s dates appear to be older than their branching SNP (their trowel symbol is located to the left of their branch). ?This is of course not possible in reality but indicates that particular SNP is older than FTDNA’s estimate. ?However the date of the branch in the tree may still be an accurate estimate: the apparent inconsistency occurs because FTDNA have not chosen the youngest SNP in a long ‘block’ of SNPs to identify the block and hence the name of the branch.

Please let me know if you have questions.

Best wishes

Nigel

FTDNA Discover Tree and Ancient DNA

#19

开云体育

Greetings S16264s

Sylvain Leprovost recently asked me whether FTDNA’s Discover Tree includes DNA recovered from ancient human remains found in archaeological investigations. ?I thought other S16264s might be interested too so am copying and expanding on my answers below:

Ancient human remains found in excavations are increasingly DNA tested if judged likely to have DNA preserved.? There have also been several special research projects which have DNA tested large numbers of individuals’ remains from museum collections. ?These individuals’ remains will also have been carbon-14 dated so providing a latest date by which the DNA SNPs found in the individual samples occurred for the first time. ?

FTDNA have included some ancient individuals in their Discover tree but not all.? To see some of them scroll up the Discover tree on your Discover Time Tree web page using the arrow next to R-S16264 and continue scrolling until you reach the page with R-DF13.? The brown trowel symbols are for ancient DNA.? Scroll down that webpage to see many more.? Note the branching SNP upstream of each individual is the youngest SNP found in their DNA: they may in life have carried more recent known branching SNPs but these were either not recovered from the sample or were not identified in the test.

Scrolling down you will see most ancient individual’s dates are more recent than the date of the branching SNP they are descended from. ?Occasionally some individual’s dates appear to be older than their branching SNP (their trowel symbol is located to the left of their branch). ?This is of course not possible in reality but indicates that particular SNP is older than FTDNA’s estimate. ?However the date of the branch in the tree may still be an accurate estimate: the apparent inconsistency occurs because FTDNA have not chosen the youngest SNP in a long ‘block’ of SNPs to identify the block and hence the name of the branch.

Please let me know if you have questions.

Best wishes

Nigel

FTDNA ‘Discovery’ Dates

#18

开云体育

Here are the estimated birth dates of most recent shared ancestor at each branch in S16264 tree as displayed on FTDNA’s Discover ‘Time Tree’ on 18/12/22. ?We have a new branch below R-L679 discovered by Edward Schultz’s BigY700 (managed by Jenny Grillet).

Best wishes to all for the holiday season

Nigel

R-Z39589 2423 BCE

R-FGC59881 2390 BCE

R-S16264 2044 BCE

R-FGC59879 2014 BCE

R-S21225 1901 BCE

R-Z16868 1804 BCE

R-BY42718 658 CE

R-Z16877 1623 BCE

R-Z16861 201 BCE

R-L679 1411 CE

R- BY210472 1574 CE

R-FGC36619 1765 CE

R-A7314 1622 CE

R-A7313 1822 CE

R-FT8513 1681 CE

Re: Renaming R-F110 to R-FGC36619

#17

Thanks Wendy.? I should also have mentioned Jenny Grillet's Edward Schultz.? He is F110+ but FGC36619- so would remain R-F110 if FTDNA are able to reassign the DF21>DF5 F110's using another of their shared SNPs.? Otherwise Edward Schultz would have to be relabelled R-L679 until more testing is done to identify more recent SNPs he shares with myself and Larry Brett.? That would require BigY700.
Kind regards
Nigel

Re: Renaming R-F110 to R-FGC36619

#16

开云体育

As always, thank you Nigel!

Show quoted text

On Oct 10, 2022, at 10:24 AM, Nigel B via groups.io <jnigelbond@...> wrote:

?Larry Brett (Wendy Morse's uncle) and I are currently assigned to haplogroup R-F110.? Most Y-DNA SNPs which are used to define haplogroups have occurred only once in the history of mankind and so can be used to define branches in the Y-DNA family tree without any risk of duplication.? Unfortunately, F110 is not such a SNP: it is a recurrent SNP which has occurred more than once and in more than one branch of the Y-DNA tree.? Until recently other occurrences were not being used for naming haplogroups but that is no longer the case - I have found there is another R-F110 in a different part of the Y-DNA tree (DF21>DSF5 .... but like S16264 also derived from L21+, DF13+).? So I have sent a note to FTDNA pointing this out and suggesting our R-F110 be renamed R-FGC36619 as FGC36619 is unique to Larry's and my branch of the Y-DNA tree.? Hopefully the change will happen within a week or two.

Best wishes

Nigel

P.S. Please post anything you think might be relevant to S16264 research including news of new matches or any new learnings about your Y-DNA ancestral origins.

Renaming R-F110 to R-FGC36619

#15

Larry Brett (Wendy Morse's uncle) and I are currently assigned to haplogroup R-F110.? Most Y-DNA SNPs which are used to define haplogroups have occurred only once in the history of mankind and so can be used to define branches in the Y-DNA family tree without any risk of duplication.? Unfortunately, F110 is not such a SNP: it is a recurrent SNP which has occurred more than once and in more than one branch of the Y-DNA tree.? Until recently other occurrences were not being used for naming haplogroups but that is no longer the case - I have found there is another R-F110 in a different part of the Y-DNA tree (DF21>DSF5 .... but like S16264 also derived from L21+, DF13+).? So I have sent a note to FTDNA pointing this out and suggesting our R-F110 be renamed R-FGC36619 as FGC36619 is unique to Larry's and my branch of the Y-DNA tree.? Hopefully the change will happen within a week or two.

Best wishes

Nigel

P.S. Please post anything you think might be relevant to S16264 research including news of new matches or any new learnings about your Y-DNA ancestral origins.

FTDNA Discover Tool

#14

Greetings

If you have logged on to your FTDNA account recently you may have noticed a new tab in the Y-DNA Results section of the Home page.? This is the new 'Discover' tool which presents information on the branching SNPs in the Y-DNA tree including date estimates for when these branches in family lines occurred.??

In the attached .pdf I have extracted the data for our line of descent for the last 4,450 years:?

- I start with R-Z39589, 'son' of R-DF13, who lived early in the European Bronze Age.

??

- The next branching SNP FGC59881 is new discovery since our Yahoo Group ceased to exist in late 2019.

- Our S16264 is one of 3 known surviving descendants of FGC59881.

- BigY testing in the last 3 years has found early branches in the S16264 family which were previously unknown - see the .pdf for details.

- I will try to find more information on the people whose BigY's discovered those branches as they may provide more clues on the ancient geographic origins of S16264 (which I still believe is likely to be northwest France, in Bronze Age Armorica).

- Rod Mann's line, R-Z16861, is estimated to have split from the line leading to the R-L679 family c.200 BCE i.e. in the Pre-Roman Iron Age

- The R-L679 families [Turner/Hammond] and [Bond/Brett/Schultz] split c.1450 CE

- The R-A7314 Turner-Hammonds split c.1650, consistent with known history

- The R-F110 families Bond-Brett-Schultz split c.1800.? My paternal ancestry and that of the Schultz line is unknown at this date.? Larry Brett's ancestor Samuel Brett was born in Dorset, England in 1806 and by 1826 was in Newfoundland.? I hope Wendy doesn't mind me asking but might both Bond and Schultz be descended from Samuel and/or one of his close relatives?

- Bob Hawk's R-BY42718 line split from that leading to his closest BigY match c.650 CE.? Bob - have you been able to find out more about this distant cousin?

Please let me know if you have comments or questions.

All the best

Nigel

FamilyTreeDNA Discover 28 September 2022.pdf

Re: new S16264+ kit?

#13

Hi Edward - 

I noticed him too but don’t know if there is any way to contact him.  It would be good to find out more.  I am traveling at the moment but hope to get back to S16264 matters when home again in a couple of weeks.

Nigel

Show quoted text

On 11 Sep 2022, at 17:27, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Everyone -

Have I noticed a new S16264+ kit at yfull.com, ID YF108578?

I'm not sure if this a genuinely new result, or if perhaps has somebody that we already know has recently submitted their result to go on the yfull tree?

(I am the "new" R-L679 - YF107964.  I didn't submit results to yfull until recently.)

Edward

new S16264+ kit?

#12

Hi Everyone -

Have I noticed a new S16264+ kit at yfull.com, ID YF108578?

I'm not sure if this a genuinely new result, or if perhaps has somebody that we already know has recently submitted their result to go on the yfull tree?

(I am the "new" R-L679 - YF107964.? I didn't submit results to yfull until recently.)

Edward

Re: Welcome … and a Matches request

#11

Nigel -

Attached is the block tree I see at FTDNA for my Big Y 500.? Nothing new that I am aware of.

I've had a number of new STR matches, but I don't believe there is anything new there either.? An image of matches sorted by date is also attached.

EH

Show quoted text

On 8/9/22 2:45 AM, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:
?Greetings to all R-S16264s. Thank for joining our new group and thank you to Edward for setting it up.  I hope you and your families have come through the recent very strange years safely.  Like many others I and my close family have all had Covid but all have thankfully recovered.

Edward and I decided to restart the group as we think it is important to keep in communication even though the pace of developments in learning more about our DNA family is extremely slow.  We remain a very small group of proven S16264 related people.  A few more distant S16264s and cousins who have been found by FTDNA testing (more of that to follow in another note).  FTDNA‘s revised privacy rules (and maybe the testers personal preferences) make it extremely difficult to find out more about them and to invite them to join us.  Fewer new testers are joining DNA Projects with ‘public’ access to their Results pages so we can not easily take the initiative to find and contact them.

One way for us to learn more of our S16264 family histories is to share information on new DNA Matches.  Any new Y25, Y37, Y67, Y111 or BigY matches are potentially of interest.  Please check.  If you have any new matches since say 2016 please contact them and invite them to join our group.  Also please let us know that you have these matches.

It is good to be in contact again.  I will send an e-mail on known S16264 developments later in the week.

Best wishes

Nigel

Screen Shot 2022-08-09 at 9.26.06 AM.png

Screen Shot 2022-08-09 at 9.30.11 AM.png

Welcome … and a Matches request

#10

?Greetings to all R-S16264s. Thank for joining our new group and thank you to Edward for setting it up.  I hope you and your families have come through the recent very strange years safely.  Like many others I and my close family have all had Covid but all have thankfully recovered.

Edward and I decided to restart the group as we think it is important to keep in communication even though the pace of developments in learning more about our DNA family is extremely slow.  We remain a very small group of proven S16264 related people.  A few more distant S16264s and cousins who have been found by FTDNA testing (more of that to follow in another note).  FTDNA‘s revised privacy rules (and maybe the testers personal preferences) make it extremely difficult to find out more about them and to invite them to join us.  Fewer new testers are joining DNA Projects with ‘public’ access to their Results pages so we can not easily take the initiative to find and contact them.

One way for us to learn more of our S16264 family histories is to share information on new DNA Matches.  Any new Y25, Y37, Y67, Y111 or BigY matches are potentially of interest.  Please check.  If you have any new matches since say 2016 please contact them and invite them to join our group.  Also please let us know that you have these matches.

It is good to be in contact again.  I will send an e-mail on known S16264 developments later in the week.

Best wishes

Nigel

Re: Greetings

#9

开云体育

There will be some spectacular failures when erroneous genealogies are widely replicated and feed too much garbage into the AI, and when there are uncanny genetic similarities that occur in isolation of one another, but I'll bet these (sometimes frightening) machines will fairly quickly develop the ability to filter out the vast majority of bad genealogies.?

It feels to me like the situation may parallel the time 25-30 years ago when the majority of the human genome was dismissed as "junk DNA" by scientists, mainly because they couldn't determine its function.? In the same way, we effectively dismissed autosomal DNA for serious genealogical purposes because of the all the recombination.? But rather than rendering it meaningless, maybe all the mixing just rendered it too complicated for our, uh, single core processors (brains) to manage.? Whereas if you have dozens or hundreds of threads that you can hold in your (electronic) brain at once, relationships appear...

Optimistically,

Edward

On 7/1/22 03:06, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

Show quoted text

That is interesting. ?Thrulines has predicted some distant links for me too. ?It is powerful technology but can be thrown by people inputting accurate trees. ?Unfortunately that is not always the case, particularly earlier than say 1800. ?Other users copy those inaccurate trees and they are then given weight as ‘high confidence’.

I am occupied with environmental projects too - around a local stream and also campaigning to reduce sewage ‘storm overflows’ into our river system.

Nigel?

On 1 Jul 2022, at 01:10, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?
Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge to Sandy Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear "Hammond" centimorgans that I've lost.?

Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.

I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out how to make those sort of connections 'in silico'.

It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to worry about it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of plants, animals, microbes, etc... that have no geographic origin ascribed to them.? I was just talking last week with a data scientist about the idea that you could probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how to more or less reliably tell you where each sequence came from.?

In a similar way...

EH

On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward Hammond wrote:

There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning match.?

I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?

I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks plausible.?

In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.

Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early stages.

EH

On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond wrote:

On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".

EH

On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:

Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.

I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the little shred of forest I own.

Edward

On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

? Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?

Nigel

On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Nigel -

Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.

Edward

Re: Greetings

#8

开云体育

That is interesting. ?Thrulines has predicted some distant links for me too. ?It is powerful technology but can be thrown by people inputting accurate trees. ?Unfortunately that is not always the case, particularly earlier than say 1800. ?Other users copy those inaccurate trees and they are then given weight as ‘high confidence’.

I am occupied with environmental projects too - around a local stream and also campaigning to reduce sewage ‘storm overflows’ into our river system.

Nigel?

Show quoted text

On 1 Jul 2022, at 01:10, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?
Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge to Sandy Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear "Hammond" centimorgans that I've lost.?

Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.

I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out how to make those sort of connections 'in silico'.

It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to worry about it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of plants, animals, microbes, etc... that have no geographic origin ascribed to them.? I was just talking last week with a data scientist about the idea that you could probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how to more or less reliably tell you where each sequence came from.?

In a similar way...

EH

On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward Hammond wrote:

There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning match.?

I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?

I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks plausible.?

In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.

Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early stages.

EH

On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond wrote:

On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".

EH

On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:

Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.

I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the little shred of forest I own.

Edward

On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

? Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?

Nigel

On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Nigel -

Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.

Edward

Re: Greetings

#7

开云体育

Sorry, I'll stop now... but imagine when you can bridge to Sandy Mocilan's other faint contacts that might bear "Hammond" centimorgans that I've lost.?

Hell, for all we know now, Sandy Mocilan may have a faint autosomal match to a Turner, or a Braginton.

I bet it doesn't take that long for it to be figured out how to make those sort of connections 'in silico'.

It's funny, in my day job one of things I am paid to worry about it all the exabytes of DNA sequences of plants, animals, microbes, etc... that have no geographic origin ascribed to them.? I was just talking last week with a data scientist about the idea that you could probably, quite soon, unleash an AI on a massive biodiversity sequence database and have it figure out how to more or less reliably tell you where each sequence came from.?

In a similar way...

EH

On 6/30/22 20:01, Edward Hammond wrote:

Show quoted text

There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning match.?

I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?

I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks plausible.?

In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.

Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early stages.

EH

On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond wrote:

On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".

EH

On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:

Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.

I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the little shred of forest I own.

Edward

On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

? Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?

Nigel

On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Nigel -

Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.

Edward

Re: Greetings

#6

开云体育

There's my best Hammond example of a nice machine learning match.?

I would never have been able to link Sandy Mocilan to myself on the basis of a tiny genetic match (10cm) with anything less than her (him?) having a well-developed genealogy.?

I haven't run down Sandy's line myself, but it looks plausible.?

In effect a probable 7th generation link made possible by AI.

Maybe not revolutionary yet, but I suspect we're at the early stages.

EH

On 6/30/22 19:25, Edward Hammond wrote:

Show quoted text

On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".

EH

On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:

Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.

I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the little shred of forest I own.

Edward

On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

? Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?

Nigel

On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Nigel -

Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.

Edward

auto.png

Re: Greetings

#5

开云体育

On a slightly different note, have you noticed how AI / machine learning seems to be producing some pretty interesting results at ancestry.com?? I'm not crazy about yet another pay site, but I've been amazed by its ability to (seemingly ... I haven't fully proofed very many) accurately match rather distant autosomal hits.? The sort of people that you scroll by in the autosomal results at FTDNA and think "that one just isn't worth pursuing".

EH

On 6/30/22 19:11, Edward Hammond wrote:

Show quoted text

Completely agree that there's not much new to discuss.? My intent was to simply have a point of contact should anything interesting arise.? Since you were frequently the emcee, I thought you might have the best list and judgment as to who to place here.? If you simply pass along the list of names and e-mail addresses you think are appropriate, I can send an invitation to join to those people.? If you think its not worth that effort, fair enough, it's certainly true that we haven't had any news of note for some time.

I've turned into a very low power - milliwatts - high frequency radio nut in the absence of anything genetic to do!? That and journeyman forester, trying (often in vain) to contain the unbelievably aggressive invasive species trying to consume the little shred of forest I own.

Edward

On 6/30/22 18:29, Nigel B via groups.io wrote:

? Hi Edward - all good here. ?Apologies for not sorting our S16264 distribution list. ?I have been busy with other interests / activities. ?It is now several years since I had any new Y-DNA matches and I confess I have lost much of my motivation for keeping the group going. ?Still I agree we should not let links lapse as we might all learn more from future matches. ?Will try harder! ?

Nigel

On 30 Jun 2022, at 15:58, Edward Hammond <manager@...> wrote:

?Hi Nigel -

Hope your summer is going well.? We're still all by our lonesome in this group.

Edward