Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genographic 2.0 y-DNA Phylotree Thumb Twiddling

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

  • Genographic 2.0 y-DNA Phylotree Thumb Twiddling

    I noticed some changes (for the worse) on the Genographic website.

    Instead of R1A1A3A1D, I am now listed as just R-L579 (terminal SNP) on the "Our Stories>Read All Stories" section of the Genographic website.

    It's kind of like getting an ancestor's zip code without any reference to the corresponding city or state or other zip codes close by. Useless.

    Release the friggin' y-phylotree already!

  • #2
    I hear you (and agree with you they need to release their phylotree).

    On the flip side, at least it is easy to tell which markers are Y-DNA and which are mt-DNA (except for the rare ones which have not yet been changed over).

    Comment


    • #3
      The tree changes are in!

      ISOGG has updated it's 2013 Y Phylogenetic Tree. It does not use the short hand notations in most cases including the longer alternating letter/number format. My has become R1a1a1b1a1b (R-CTS11946) with "redefined" notation. However, at FTDNA it is R1a1a1g (R-CTS11946). In addition I have ordered an L1046 test to confirm whether I am R1a1a1b1a1b* or R1a1a1b1a1b1.
      Check the latest SNP Index at ISOGG for your latest designation

      http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
        Release the friggin' y-phylotree already!
        My understanding is that the new "official" tree will be released in a formal publication -- or at least that's what I understood a while back. Whether that's still the case, I'm not certain. But if it's indeed waiting on publication, then the delay may be out of Genographic's & FTDNA's control. Formal publications go through peer-review and approval, so writing the article and submitting it are just 2 of the steps in the process, and the rest is up to the reviewers and the publisher.

        Elise

        Comment


        • #5
          Late last year word was that a paper by Spencer Wells would reveal a Geno 2 associated haplotree. I think he showed some slides from the draft paper at the FTDNA Annual Conference on the basis of no photographs to be taken of them.

          However, given that various haplogroup projects are still working to assemble haplotrees of their own groups, bit by bit as test results are returned, I don't know how Wells, or FTDNA, could have sufficient info yet to publish a comprehensive tree.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gtc View Post
            I don't know how Wells, or FTDNA, could have sufficient info yet to publish a comprehensive tree.
            As a "citizen scientist", I expect the tree to change as new SNP's and their positions on the tree are sorted out.

            Right now, we are not provided much. (although the ISOGG update was helpful)

            The Geno 2.0 results were delayed in Dec. we were told because the y-tree had to be rewritten. Well, it's Feb. and the promised tree from NG is still not here.

            Not Cool!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
              As a "citizen scientist", I expect the tree to change as new SNP's and their positions on the tree are sorted out.

              Right now, we are not provided much. (although the ISOGG update was helpful)

              The Geno 2.0 results were delayed in Dec. we were told because the y-tree had to be rewritten. Well, it's Feb. and the promised tree from NG is still not here.

              Not Cool!
              Did you read post #4 in this thread by efgen? What she wrote is certainly a factor in the delay of the publishing of a new tree. We citizen scientists don't operate under the same constraints as the professional scientists do.

              Of course, Spencer Wells and National Geographic could buy up an online journal and rename it and publish their tree without peer review in their new journal. This is what the veterinarian who claims to have sequenced Bigfoot did after no established peer-reviewed journal would publish her "study." See http://www.themadskeptic.com/2013/02...n-journal.html

              I prefer the traditional route which is slower, but ensures the science is solid.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                Did you read post #4 in this thread by efgen? What she wrote is certainly a factor in the delay of the publishing of a new tree.
                Yes, I did read this and what she said could in fact be very true.

                However, this information does not come directly from NatGeo.
                It's speculation.

                The rumor mill posts of phantom y-DNA phylotree release dates provided by third parties are not helpful.

                Direct communication from NatGeo to it's participants on the official Geno 2.0 website would be preferable and appreciated.

                Go to the Geno website and click on "News."

                Does it say anywhere that the y-DNA tree is being rewritten?
                Does it say that a scientific paper is pending with the new findings with an anticipated release date?
                Anything about initial Denisovan results? etc.

                I can't wait to read about any exciting developments that arise.
                Nothing so far.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
                  Direct communication from NatGeo to it's participants on the official Geno 2.0 website would be preferable and appreciated.
                  Indeed, so why don't you contact NG for an answer? The management of NG's website is not FTDNA's responsibility.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Family are starting to get NG matches.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by darroll View Post
                      Family are starting to get NG matches.
                      What do you mean by "NG matches?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JuanCarlos View Post
                        What do you mean by "NG matches?
                        I think what he means by matches is the dots that appear around you in the "magic circle" on the Geno website under the Our Story tab.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why do people put a story in the circle without a reference to the SNP.All they need to write is their SNp staus,country of origin and if they want to be contacted they could put their ysearch ID as well. I dont want to read about their family historys .Thats their business.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
                            I think what he means by matches is the dots that appear around you in the "magic circle" on the Geno website under the Our Story tab.
                            Thank you, I was wondering. I have not checked the Geno website very often. I kind of lost intereste because there's not that much information there.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X