Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New FTDNA tree is inaccurate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New FTDNA tree is inaccurate

    The Geno 2 results showed that the SNPs at the CTS2509, Z325 level were downstream of Z326. The new haplotree has those haplogroups as equivalent.

    See the ISOGG tree for the correct alignment of severals under R1b-U106 http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

    The U106 project administrators will be releasing a significantly updated tree which includes new clades defined by FGC and Big-Y sequencing results. We hope that FTDNA will be able to merge this significant update into the current tree

  • #2
    Originally posted by wkauffman View Post
    The Geno 2 results showed that the SNPs at the CTS2509, Z325 level were downstream of Z326. The new haplotree has those haplogroups as equivalent.

    See the ISOGG tree for the correct alignment of severals under R1b-U106 http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

    The U106 project administrators will be releasing a significantly updated tree which includes new clades defined by FGC and Big-Y sequencing results. We hope that FTDNA will be able to merge this significant update into the current tree
    There are a lot of new SNPs to be added to the new FTDNA tree yet. When will the new U106 tree be published? I suppose it will be very accurate!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      My Cousin Switched from yDNA I-P37 to F-M89

      Should I order an whole bunch of F-M89 SNPs and take advantage of the super SNP sale?

      LOL
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        It's expected and logical that the Y tree will always be out of date, because of the multiple sources for the discovery of new SNP's. A consequence of this fact is that the tree must be, in the latest IT jargon, "agile". It must be constructed in such a way that it can be easily updated, and those updates must be done almost in real time. Otherwise, the utility of the tree will be marginal.

        However, the new tree would be much easier to use if it included known synonyms (labeled explicitly as synonyms), and if some consensus could be reached about which SNP names have priority (and therefore listed first). For example, it would be a nice touch if we could all agree to use the name first proposed for each SNP (in any public forum), provided the original name has not already been used for something else. With clearer rules that can be observed by everyone, and a clear statement of synonymy in the FTDNA Y tree, I think we would all have a clearer idea of what was going on. If there is already some sort of protocol in use for SNP names, I don't see any evidence of it!
        Last edited by John McCoy; 25 April 2014, 01:13 PM. Reason: correct space

        Comment


        • #5
          Conflicting info.

          My home page still says R-M269 (R1b1a2) as does my Halpotree. My profile now lists only R-P297(R1b1a)

          Before the new Halpotree, every thing matched at R-M269 (R1b1a2)

          What gives?

          Kevin

          Comment


          • #6
            It will no longer let me edit so here is some additional.

            Was thinking about ordering the recommended SNPs but should I if the info in my account does not match.


            Kevin

            Comment


            • #7
              As there are numerous threads on this topic I've posted this blog post link in them. It gives quite detailed background to how FTDNA decided what to include and what not to:

              http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04...s-arrived.html

              Comment

              Working...
              X