Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FTDNA Results

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    in fact, I have no idea

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostX
    replied
    Originally posted by Maria_W
    Klaw,

    My mtDNA haplogroup desgination is H1a1 and i thought that was alot of letters and numbers. Although I don't know alot about haplogroup designations your R1b1b2a2 has got to be the longest one I've seen!
    Maria
    Oh it gets even better. They're down to R1b1b2a2g2 now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maria_W
    replied
    Hi

    Klaw,

    My mtDNA haplogroup desgination is H1a1 and i thought that was alot of letters and numbers. Although I don't know alot about haplogroup designations your R1b1b2a2 has got to be the longest one I've seen!

    Have a nice day!
    Maria

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by klaw
    Because FTDNA's classifications are based on the Karafet paper, I am classified as R1b1b2 (formerly R1b1c) whether or not I have tested for S116/rs34276300 even though it's a test they offer themselves (which I was happy to pay for). The new ISOGG tree already incorporates this change (being rs34276300+ I'm now classified as R1b1b2a2), which provides another level of detail missing under FTDNA's new (now obsolete) system. I'm not sure how the decisions are made; I suspect that FTDNA went with the classifications in the Karafet paper because they were the most up-to-date at the time. However, they were aware of the new SNP's implications and it was public knowledge that ISOGG was close to updating their haplogroup tree. Why not wait?
    It's very simple. FTDNA's hard and fast policy is to only include SNPs in the haplogroup tree which have been published in scientific papers. Since S116/rs34276300 has not been published in a paper, they don't recognize it in their new tree.

    The fact that they're testing for rs34276300 now and have firm evidence of where it sits on the tree does make that policy incongruous!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by GhostX
    At the time rs34276300 started being discussed as an important marker, Karafet et al's (2008) paper (which is the basis for FTDNA's classification scheme) had already been written and was awaiting publication.

    That's unfortunate, because now they're making us pay for rs34276300 as a separate test instead of including it in the Deep Clade-R panel. It won't be included in the panel until it gets published and added to their tree.
    Because FTDNA's classifications are based on the Karafet paper, I am classified as R1b1b2 (formerly R1b1c) whether or not I have tested for S116/rs34276300 even though it's a test they offer themselves (which I was happy to pay for). The new ISOGG tree already incorporates this change (being rs34276300+ I'm now classified as R1b1b2a2), which provides another level of detail missing under FTDNA's new (now obsolete) system. I'm not sure how the decisions are made; I suspect that FTDNA went with the classifications in the Karafet paper because they were the most up-to-date at the time. However, they were aware of the new SNP's implications and it was public knowledge that ISOGG was close to updating their haplogroup tree. Why not wait?

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostX
    replied
    Originally posted by klaw
    To clarify, or confuse, matters further ISOGG published their new haplogroup tree on May 4, 2008. In it, they designate the haplotype defined by U152+ (formerly R1b1c10) as R1b1b2a2g.

    I'm not sure why FTDNA didn't wait to go with the nomenclature that takes S116/rs34276300 into account, as they began offering that test over a month ago. Perhaps it was just a timing thing and they didn't realize how close ISOGG was to publishing the updated tree.
    At the time rs34276300 started being discussed as an important marker, Karafet et al's (2008) paper (which is the basis for FTDNA's classification scheme) had already been written and was awaiting publication.

    That's unfortunate, because now they're making us pay for rs34276300 as a separate test instead of including it in the Deep Clade-R panel. It won't be included in the panel until it gets published and added to their tree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Isogg 2008

    To clarify, or confuse, matters further ISOGG published their new haplogroup tree on May 4, 2008. In it, they designate the haplotype defined by U152+ (formerly R1b1c10) as R1b1b2a2g.

    I'm not sure why FTDNA didn't wait to go with the nomenclature that takes S116/rs34276300 into account, as they began offering that test over a month ago. Perhaps it was just a timing thing and they didn't realize how close ISOGG was to publishing the updated tree.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by Joe Newton
    so I know that I am R1b1b2h
    Until recently, R1b1b2h was known as R1b1c10. Here is one researcher's tentative conclusions about R1b1c10:

    http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    R1b1b2h (R1b1c10)

    My YDNA profile is

    M173+ M207+ M269+ M343+ P25+ U152+ M126- M153- M160- M18- M222- M37- M65- M73- P107- P66- SRY2627- U106- U198-

    so I know that I am R1b1b2h and not the R1b1b1h (R1b1c9). From several papers I have been able to find on the web, it appears that DYS#392=15 and DYS#492=13 are associated with the R1b1b2h group. My problem is that there does not appear to be much evidence as to the orgin of this particular clan.

    DD

    Leave a comment:


  • Clochaire
    replied
    old R1b1c9 Frisian?

    Originally posted by Joe Newton
    I just got my results back from FTDNA and found out that I am R1B1b2h with DYS#392=15 and DYS#492=13. A survey of the various databases shows that this is not a common occurance. Can anyone provide me insight into where this tree may have originated? I know that may family migrated to the US from England sometime around 1630 and I have been told that they came from "north of London." Any help is greatly appreciated.

    DD
    Maybe someone prove me wrong, but the haplotype you describe sounds like the old R1b1c9, which I think is sometimes referred to as a 'Frisian' haplotype, with strong concentrations in S. England and N. France, Netherlands and Germany. Isn't the underlying SNP considered the single most common subclade of?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest started a topic FTDNA Results

    FTDNA Results

    I just got my results back from FTDNA and found out that I am R1B1b2h with DYS#392=15 and DYS#492=13. A survey of the various databases shows that this is not a common occurance. Can anyone provide me insight into where this tree may have originated? I know that may family migrated to the US from England sometime around 1630 and I have been told that they came from "north of London." Any help is greatly appreciated.

    DD
Working...
X