Haplogroup Assignment

[Bill Hurst]

Never saw it!!! I will join immediately! Thanks

They don't make it easy to find haplogroup projects. If you look at the list of projects from the main FTDNA page, you won't see them. You will see them only if you have mtDNA (or Y-DNA) results and look from your personal page. And I don't think they are in the lists of suggested projects.

Bill Hurst

[Ann Turner]

Mtdna community has me at H1 James Lick at H7 Who do I believe.

The difficulty might be due to the weight given to a mutation 3010A. This "defines" H1, but it is a hotspot that crops up in many different haplogroups. If you have the more stable mutations that define H7, I'd go with that one. If you write to James Lick, he'll probably be able to give you the reasoning behind his assignment.

[southjerseygeni]

Never saw it!!! I will join immediately! Thanks

[Bill Hurst]

Also, there is no x project, very frustrating.

There is an X Project: https://my.familytreedna.com/group-j...pYjjP4RLuyk%3d

Bill Hurst

[southjerseygeni]

I would believe the james slick site as when I uploaded to mtdnacommunity they gave me the same designation as he did X2b- (T226C), in fact that's where I first saw it on mtdna community

[andbro]

Mtdna community has me at H1 James Lick at H7 Who do I believe.

[southjerseygeni]

Also, there is no x project, very frustrating.

[Bill Hurst]

FTDNA now "supports" MTDNA haplogroups via http://www.mtdnacommunity.org

The FTDNA CEO has stated publicly that MtDNA is not very useful for genealogy, so we should all be happy www.mtdnacommunity.org exists to support new haplogroups. I would expect FTDNA to continue downplaying Mtdna testing and the corresponding matches and results.

Hi thetick and all,

First, I have worked on K and U8 subclade creation for PhyloTree builds 13 through 15. I knew that a great many new subclades were to be introduced at the same time as the Behar et al. (2012b) RSRS paper. So when Build 14 was released in April, I originally hoped that FTDNA would update everybody's subclade designation at the same time! After all, Dr. Behar is also the Chief Mitochondrial DNA Scientist at FTDNA. Silly me. I was told that FTDNA IT was "working on it." That was six months ago. Now I'm told that it will be done, but they have other projects. One of those projects is the new Geno 2.0 test, for which FTDNA selected the 3200+ SNPs to be tested, which should get everybody into a subclade in line with PhyloTree Build 14. So they need to be able to designate Geno 2.0 with new subclades very soon. I told them that they needed to designate their existing FMS customers with the new subclades first, so that we project administrators could see if the designations are correct. Most will be; some won't. I'll bet on that. It's a complicated process.

MtDNACommunity.org is an FTDNA website. It's run by Dr. Behar. Apparently, if you upload your FMS results to it, you will see your updated subclade assignment. FTDNA has never announced this process. I can't remember that they have ever mentioned Behar's RSRS paper, the new PhyloTree builds, or the possibility of new subclades. The only way you would know your FMS was sent to GenBank in April by Dr. Behar is to look at the Results tab on your personal page. It will give you your "NCBI" number. That works, if you know that NCBI is GenBank. If you didn't pick up on the implications of that, then upload your results to mtDNACommunity, then there might be a duplication. You might have one long-lost anonymous exact FMS match who is actually you! This is not trivial; Behar sent 4,222 FTDNA FMS results to GenBank in April. PhyloTree Build 14 added hundreds of new subclades based on these results. FTDNA needs to update the designations now, before they start posting correct or incorrect results for Geno 2.0 participants.

If you are a K or U8 and join one of my projects, I will put you into a Subgroup on our website that corresponds to your new subclade designation. I recently created more new Subgroups in K because of six new subclades in PhyloTree Build 15.

Bill Hurst

[southjerseygeni]

Actually the tool on dna.jamesslick.com is very useful, and the results say "X2b-(T226C) "Perfect Match! Your results are an exact match to this haplogroup." Extras
(0): (309.1C) (16519C)"

Under the plain X2b it says "Good match! Your results also had extra markers for this haplogroup. Extras (1) 226C (309.1C) (16519C)"

Just needed a clarification on it. But seems like they don't consider the T226C extra in the first paragraph since it has (0) after the word "extras".

Also, when I decided to take the mtDNA full sequence, it is touted on FTNDA as being the "only test you will ever have to take". So that's why I took it. I know both sides of my Dad's genealogy all the way back to the early 1600's from an island off of France. I was not interested in doing that side. I wanted to go back by my maternal "mothers." I have gotten back to the mid 1700's but found a brick wall. I have 8 exact full sequence matches. (Pretty good being an "x".) But so far no shared surnames. HOw many generations back could I expect to go being we are exact matches until we would find a shared "mother?" I"ve gone back 7 already.

[MMaddi]

I find that statement comical . I have not had a Y DNA match since I tested 2 years ago. My population finder tests are all over much of western Europe.
My matches from family finder are varied. Yet with my one match on mtDNA I was able to pinpoint a village in France of my 9th grandmother. Ironic.

There are far more success stories with genetic genealogists using yDNA results to break through brick walls in the paternal line than there are with mtDNA results to find common ancestors with matches. That's why Bennett Greenspan and FTDNA don't make unsupportable claims about the usefulness of mtDNA testing for genealogical research.

You're very lucky to have found a common ancestor using mtDNA results. The problem is that even a perfect FGS/FMS match could easily involve a common ancestor who lived several hundred or 1,000 years ago. If you're only dealing with an HVR1/HVR2 match, the common ancestor could be a few thousand years ago.

Also, for most European cultures women are generally harder to track then men, since the maiden name is given up after marriage. Fortunately for me, Italian women keep their maiden name throughout their entire life, even after marriage.

[Brunetmj]

I found a 7th cousin with YDNA, a verified genealogical common ancestor born 1700.

I guess that's my point. Who really knows what will work and what will not with regards these tests

[thetick]

I find that statement comical . I have not had a Y DNA match since I tested 2 years ago. My population finder tests are all over much of western Europe.
My matches from family finder are varied. Yet with my one match on mtDNA I was able to pinpoint a village in France of my 9th grandmother. Ironic.

I found a 7th cousin with YDNA, a verified genealogical common ancestor born 1700. My Mtdna so far is worthless.. no exact matches and the closest matches are ethnically all over Europe (~400 HVR1/HVR2 matches and ~1400 HRV1 matches). Nothing more than having a European (from Western to Eastern) based Mtdna.

[Brunetmj]

The FTDNA CEO has stated publicly that MtDNA is not very useful for genealogy

I find that statement comical . I have not had a Y DNA match since I tested 2 years ago. My population finder tests are all over much of western Europe.
My matches from family finder are varied. Yet with my one match on mtDNA I was able to pinpoint a village in France of my 9th grandmother. Ironic.

[thetick]

FTDNA tends not to keep up with things as far as mtDNA is concerned.

FTDNA now "supports" MTDNA haplogroups via http://www.mtdnacommunity.org

The FTDNA CEO has stated publicly that MtDNA is not very useful for genealogy, so we should all be happy www.mtdnacommunity.org exists to support new haplogroups. I would expect FTDNA to continue downplaying Mtdna testing and the corresponding matches and results.

[Brunetmj]

If i am understanding your post correctly I think what James lick is saying that you have an extra value t226c which makes you a good fit but not perfect. FTDNA tends just to "round things off". I am H at this site but H33A at licks utility . FTDNA tends not to keep up with things as far as mtDNA is concerned.