GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-07 > 1121530144


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New SNP and Haplogroup tests
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:09:04 -0600
References: <002701c589ea$990dd3e0$f7d3ae51@oemcomputer> <BAY104-DAV5EF9C08F06495D544FCE5F1D30@phx.gbl>


You are correct about the FTDNA tree. It was a "working tree" from an
academic lab; I have found no confirmation that the general
research/academic community adopted it as a YCC tree, or in many cases has
ever seen it. My hunch is that it will have a short bench life. It should
not be represented as a YCC2005 tree unless some unannounced adoption has
taken place --- which I doubt.

This is not to say that continuing to work with a 2003 tree after all that
has been learned since makes sense. If the testing companies are only
interested in telling pretty tribal (haplogroup) migration stories for the
customers, regardless of how up to date or accurate they are, then we will
never get cutting edge SNP tests. I still maintain hope that one or more
companies will soon bring us to the downstream SNP frontier and will give
their customers narrative which is up to date and frank about what is known
and not known from their perspective. Both the companies and academic labs
should put all their cards on the table.

Ken



----- Original Message -----
From: "William Hurst" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] New SNP and Haplogroup tests


> Well, the new DNA Heritage announcement has some depressing aspects. We
have
> been using the term
> "biogeographical test" to mean an autosomal test such as the DNAPrint test
> offered by AncestryByDNA. Now DNA Heritage is using it to describe Y-DNA
> SNP tests.
>
> DNAH is using the YCC2003 tree, while David Faux's new Ethnoancestry
company
> is using the 2005 tree, which he refers to at least once as the YCC2005
> tree. The 2005 tree was issued by FTDNA, but even they don't always follow
> it. It apparently has not been adopted by the YCC. As an example, the 2005
> tree says SNP P25 defines R1b1 and M343 for R1b, while the FTDNA database
> still says my P25 test puts me in R1b. Has the YCC abandoned their role in
> setting standards? Recently the NGS Genographic Project says that R1b is
> defined by M343, so they seem to be following the 2005 tree - "official"
or
> not. DNAH says that M343 defines R1c.
>
> Confusion reigns. I'm not the one confused; the powers that be are
confused.
>
> Bill Hurst
>
>
> ==============================
> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: