Haplogroup change?

[k.o.gran]

This thread makes it pretty clear that the "Tree" in Family "Tree" DNA is more or less a coat rack.

Not correct at all. What you are talking about is the haplotree. Which is not defined by FTDNA. Please head over to the ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) website for more information.

I agree that FTDNA could have been more informative regarding the updated haplogroups, but being angry with them for keeping the information up to date is a bit harsh...

[razyn]

I'm totally not angry; I'm into irony. But calling this "keeping the information up to date" is a bit naive. The left hand knoweth not what the right hand doth (e.g., publisheth articles about the SNP that "defines" a given haplogroup, at least until somebody else holds a conference and redefines it).

And if anyone with one good eye and half sense looked at his own FTDNA certified haplogroup in late February, and again in mid March, he would quite logically be as puzzled as the person whose query opened this thread.

And btw that ISOGG site's 2011 R tree was where I first got the impression that V88 defines R1b1a, and that V8 defines R1b1a2. It still says that today.

[AngeliaR]

Puzzled by Haplo Diffs

Just got results from 23andme and they use a different designation. May mean the same thing, but it's got me a little puzzled. I understand the ftdna update to the tree, but the variation in reporting is confusing.

Old ftdna: R1b1b2a1b5 (Deep clade confirmed)
New ftdna: R1b1a2a1a1b4
23&me: R1b1b2a1a2f*

I think they all shorthand to R-L21?
Guess it's not really standardized nomenclature and perhaps shifting as new discoveries are made?

Any clarity on this appreciated.

Thanks!

[aeduna]

Just got results from 23andme and they use a different designation. May mean the same thing, but it's got me a little puzzled. I understand the ftdna update to the tree, but the variation in reporting is confusing.

Old ftdna: R1b1b2a1b5 (Deep clade confirmed)
New ftdna: R1b1a2a1a1b4
23&me: R1b1b2a1a2f*

I think they all shorthand to R-L21?
Guess it's not really standardized nomenclature and perhaps shifting as new discoveries are made?

The YCC2008 tree says R1b1a2a1a1b4

Wikipedia says R1b1b2a1a2f:
This subclade is defined by the presence of the marker L21, also referred to as M529.[2] Myres et al. report it is most common in England and Ireland (25-50% of the whole male population).[7]

and the reference is to a publication from Aug 2010. It might be that FTDNA started their review before that publication came out, and so the changes there didn't get included in their new tree - I don't know how long the review process takes.