World Families Forums - R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 05:29:15 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-L21: DF41 another new subclade to watch - it is old!  (Read 40709 times)
k.o.gran
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #175 on: September 23, 2012, 04:44:08 AM »

Does Alex Williamson plan on doing an updated Neighbor-Joining tree anytime soon? I would be curious to see the changes to the DF41 section due to recent test results.

Agreed! But he says it's rather time consuming and requires manual work, so we are not to expect them too frequently. It would be interesting to see a new NJ tree when all the DF41 currently in batch are done.

-Kai
Logged

R-DF63+
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Online Online

Posts: 273


« Reply #176 on: September 23, 2012, 06:59:15 AM »

I know several of the kits that he predicted as in R-DF41 in his tree turned up to be DF41- obviously an updated kit would at least rearrange this and give us a beter idea of what kits we should contact to suggest testing.

The other option obviously over the next couple months will be for at least one DF41+ man to do Gen 2.0 testing, one it becomes available.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #177 on: September 23, 2012, 07:26:30 AM »

I know several of the kits that he predicted as in R-DF41 in his tree turned up to be DF41- obviously an updated kit would at least rearrange this and give us a beter idea of what kits we should contact to suggest testing.

The other option obviously over the next couple months will be for at least one DF41+ man to do Gen 2.0 testing, one it becomes available.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Good point. I will do Geno 2.0 in the DF21 group. I hope we can get Clan Colla and Ely O Carroll to do the same. It would be great to have at least one test for each of the Big Six especially M222 as there are at least three new SNPs under M222 and probably more. For DF41 it would be interesting to test the Stewart line and a confirmed Scots Gaelic line. In any event I would await the Geno 2.0 report, which is supposed to be published prior to test availability, ie end of October.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 07:31:22 AM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #178 on: September 23, 2012, 07:34:11 AM »

Does Alex Williamson plan on doing an updated Neighbor-Joining tree anytime soon? I would be curious to see the changes to the DF41 section due to recent test results.

Agreed! But he says it's rather time consuming and requires manual work, so we are not to expect them too frequently. It would be interesting to see a new NJ tree when all the DF41 currently in batch are done.

-Kai

That's too bad, but I understand. I did enjoy the last one, since it gave us something to work with in recruiting likely candidates for testing.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #179 on: September 23, 2012, 07:37:12 AM »

I know several of the kits that he predicted as in R-DF41 in his tree turned up to be DF41- obviously an updated kit would at least rearrange this and give us a beter idea of what kits we should contact to suggest testing.

The other option obviously over the next couple months will be for at least one DF41+ man to do Gen 2.0 testing, one it becomes available.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I am hazy on just what one will get from the Geno 2.0. I've heard conflicting reports. Some say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and some say it won't test the newest L21 SNPs.

Do you know which is right?

Of course, I don't have the spare change in my genetic testing budget for the Geno 2.0 anyway, since I want to do mtDNA and Family Finder tests on my dad's kit.
Logged

Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Online Online

Posts: 273


« Reply #180 on: September 23, 2012, 07:43:19 AM »

I know several of the kits that he predicted as in R-DF41 in his tree turned up to be DF41- obviously an updated kit would at least rearrange this and give us a beter idea of what kits we should contact to suggest testing.

The other option obviously over the next couple months will be for at least one DF41+ man to do Gen 2.0 testing, one it becomes available.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I am hazy on just what one will get from the Geno 2.0. I've heard conflicting reports. Some say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and some say it won't test the newest L21 SNPs.

Do you know which is right?

Of course, I don't have the spare change in my genetic testing budget for the Geno 2.0 anyway, since I want to do mtDNA and Family Finder tests on my dad's kit.

Well there are two conflicting sides to Gen 2.0. These are:
  • It's Chip based, the Chip was designed last November/December, as a result community discovered SNP's wouldn't probably be in it. DF41 is a good example
  • Supposedly they've added 15k Y-SNP's, alot of these from testing labs and have never been available for commercial testing.

So for example even if DF41 isn't included there might be an upstream SNP (say between DF41 and DF13) that we don't know about at the moment that could be in it. Personally I'm waiting for the research paper and the first round of tests to come through before ordering. If it does shake up the tree (specifically the L21 tree) then I will probably look at ordering it in the new year.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #181 on: September 23, 2012, 08:10:46 AM »

I know several of the kits that he predicted as in R-DF41 in his tree turned up to be DF41- obviously an updated kit would at least rearrange this and give us a beter idea of what kits we should contact to suggest testing.

The other option obviously over the next couple months will be for at least one DF41+ man to do Gen 2.0 testing, one it becomes available.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I am hazy on just what one will get from the Geno 2.0. I've heard conflicting reports. Some say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and some say it won't test the newest L21 SNPs.

Do you know which is right?

Of course, I don't have the spare change in my genetic testing budget for the Geno 2.0 anyway, since I want to do mtDNA and Family Finder tests on my dad's kit.

Well there are two conflicting sides to Gen 2.0. These are:
  • It's Chip based, the Chip was designed last November/December, as a result community discovered SNP's wouldn't probably be in it. DF41 is a good example
  • Supposedly they've added 15k Y-SNP's, alot of these from testing labs and have never been available for commercial testing.

So for example even if DF41 isn't included there might be an upstream SNP (say between DF41 and DF13) that we don't know about at the moment that could be in it. Personally I'm waiting for the research paper and the first round of tests to come through before ordering. If it does shake up the tree (specifically the L21 tree) then I will probably look at ordering it in the new year.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Oh, okay, thanks.

It should be interesting to see how that pans out.

BTW, Province, kit 104708, who is on Alex Williamson's last NJ tree in the DF41 section (on page 86), just ordered DF41.
Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #182 on: September 23, 2012, 10:14:29 AM »

I don't want to interfere with all the discussions going on here, but as it's a very nice small group, I'm currently using DF41 as a test case for the next version of my presentation software (used on L257.org). I *do* hope, this is permitted $:-)

There are two things that appear to me:

(1) There has been a little discussion about the "age" of DF41. I guess, DF41 will turn out to consist of a number of more or less tight clusters with a significant distance between them and it might be far more appropriate to discuss the "age" of each of these clusters individually. The combined age of DF41 is interesting from a historical point of view of course, but possibly much less so than the age of the individual clusters.

(2) The cluster that rms2 is in, I tend to call it the Stevens Cluster for clarity - $:-), screams for a 111 marker result to compare to the other clusters. One might get the impression, there's not really any good reason left to not ..... $;-)
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #183 on: September 23, 2012, 07:19:59 PM »

I don't want to interfere with all the discussions going on here, but as it's a very nice small group, I'm currently using DF41 as a test case for the next version of my presentation software (used on L257.org). I *do* hope, this is permitted $:-)

There are two things that appear to me:

(1) There has been a little discussion about the "age" of DF41. I guess, DF41 will turn out to consist of a number of more or less tight clusters with a significant distance between them and it might be far more appropriate to discuss the "age" of each of these clusters individually. The combined age of DF41 is interesting from a historical point of view of course, but possibly much less so than the age of the individual clusters.

(2) The cluster that rms2 is in, I tend to call it the Stevens Cluster for clarity - $:-), screams for a 111 marker result to compare to the other clusters. One might get the impression, there's not really any good reason left to not ..... $;-)

I'm honored, but I'm not sure the Webbs, Cooper, Self, the Prices, Chorn, and whoever else will feel the same way.

I have been thinking that now would be a good time to upgrade to 111 markers, but I'm not sure my dna testing budget will allow for it. I want to test my dad's kit for mtDNA and Family Finder (he's 82).

I look forward to the results of your experiments with DF41.

Thanks!
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #184 on: September 23, 2012, 07:58:56 PM »

I just got word that my 64/67 Stephens (with a ph) match, kit 208061, has ordered DF41 and that one of the Prices in our cluster (I don't know which one) has also ordered DF41.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 07:59:36 PM by rms2 » Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #185 on: September 23, 2012, 08:37:07 PM »

I'm honored, but I'm not sure the Webbs, Cooper, Self, the Prices, Chorn, and whoever else will feel the same way.

I have been thinking that now would be a good time to upgrade to 111 markers, but I'm not sure my dna testing budget will allow for it. I want to test my dad's kit for mtDNA and Family Finder (he's 82).

I look forward to the results of your experiments with DF41.

Thanks!

I'm sure these people will feel honoured as well sharing a cluster with you. Naming of clusters is still a bit of a problem, I guess. In R-Z18 we've used geographical names (that often turn out to be wrong or at least confusing) or names of colours (that bear no relationship to the DNA results, so recognition is problematic). I've seen surname projects introduce names of prominent members for cluster names, such as a person or family who invested significantly in testing (e.g. WTY or lots of 67/111 kits) or plays a major role in the community. And are a member of the cluster of course. I tend to like the idea. $:-)

I'm amazed. I mean, presumably you have been in this business/hobby longer than I have. You have always been looking for your position in the Y-tree, invested lots and lots of time and money, and now that you've found what you have been looking for so long, you are more interested in the mt-DNA of your father ?? I must be missing something important in your considerations. $;-)
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 09:06:55 PM by Peter M » Logged
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #186 on: September 23, 2012, 08:49:19 PM »

I don't want to interfere with all the discussions going on here, but as it's a very nice small group, I'm currently using DF41 as a test case for the next version of my presentation software (used on L257.org). I *do* hope, this is permitted $:-)

There are two things that appear to me:

(1) There has been a little discussion about the "age" of DF41. I guess, DF41 will turn out to consist of a number of more or less tight clusters with a significant distance between them and it might be far more appropriate to discuss the "age" of each of these clusters individually. The combined age of DF41 is interesting from a historical point of view of course, but possibly much less so than the age of the individual clusters.

(2) The cluster that rms2 is in, I tend to call it the Stevens Cluster for clarity - $:-), screams for a 111 marker result to compare to the other clusters. One might get the impression, there's not really any good reason left to not ..... $;-)

I'm honored, but I'm not sure the Webbs, Cooper, Self, the Prices, Chorn, and whoever else will feel the same way.

I have been thinking that now would be a good time to upgrade to 111 markers, but I'm not sure my dna testing budget will allow for it. I want to test my dad's kit for mtDNA and Family Finder (he's 82).

I look forward to the results of your experiments with DF41.

Thanks!

The Coopers already have a cluster named after them.

I refer to R-L627 as the "Cooper-Reynolds" cluster. :)

--david

Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #187 on: September 23, 2012, 08:57:28 PM »

I just got word that my 64/67 Stephens (with a ph) match, kit 208061, has ordered DF41 and that one of the Prices in our cluster (I don't know which one) has also ordered DF41.

How about a REAL experiment: Mr. Hebert, Kit# 4568 from France ? I'm not sure, he will be positive, but the case is very interesting.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 08:57:52 PM by Peter M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #188 on: September 24, 2012, 03:58:46 AM »

I just got word that my 64/67 Stephens (with a ph) match, kit 208061, has ordered DF41 and that one of the Prices in our cluster (I don't know which one) has also ordered DF41.

How about a REAL experiment: Mr. Hebert, Kit# 4568 from France ? I'm not sure, he will be positive, but the case is very interesting.

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.
Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #189 on: September 24, 2012, 09:29:49 AM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia. Biggest problem is, only one has tested 67 markers, so it's not easy to see if these people are L21+. This appears to be highly relevant, as a bit further away from the center of the cluster, the percentage of U106 increases dramatically, possibly as a result of DYS390=23.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 12:16:48 PM by Peter M » Logged
Larry Walker
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #190 on: September 24, 2012, 09:42:36 AM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia and only one has tested 67 markers.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


If somebody were to configure the R-DF41 & Subclades project so that R-DF41 & subclades appeared in the list between R-DF21 & Subclades and R-DF49 & Subclades on the Donation page, then somebody might be able to donate some funds so that some of those folks could get tested.  Hint-Hint-Hint !!!
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Online Online

Posts: 273


« Reply #191 on: September 24, 2012, 12:07:37 PM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia and only one has tested 67 markers.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


If somebody were to configure the R-DF41 & Subclades project so that R-DF41 & subclades appeared in the list between R-DF21 & Subclades and R-DF49 & Subclades on the Donation page, then somebody might be able to donate some funds so that some of those folks could get tested.  Hint-Hint-Hint !!!

The issue appears to be an FTDNA one, there is a default link here: however in the selection menu it doesn't show DF41, even though it correctly shows the list of "R" projects:
http://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=R-DF41Subclades

I've sent an email to FTDNA helpdesk to get them to add it in.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
Larry Walker
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #192 on: September 24, 2012, 12:46:25 PM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia and only one has tested 67 markers.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


If somebody were to configure the R-DF41 & Subclades project so that R-DF41 & subclades appeared in the list between R-DF21 & Subclades and R-DF49 & Subclades on the Donation page, then somebody might be able to donate some funds so that some of those folks could get tested.  Hint-Hint-Hint !!!

The issue appears to be an FTDNA one, there is a default link here: however in the selection menu it doesn't show DF41, even though it correctly shows the list of "R" projects:
http://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=R-DF41Subclades

I've sent an email to FTDNA helpdesk to get them to add it in.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Then I'll send them an email too. If they start getting complaints from the membership at large they'll get the hint.

Than ks
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #193 on: September 24, 2012, 07:58:24 PM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia. Biggest problem is, only one has tested 67 markers, so it's not easy to see if these people are L21+. This appears to be highly relevant, as a bit further away from the center of the cluster, the percentage of U106 increases dramatically, possibly as a result of DYS390=23.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


I emailed Kendle, kit 195898, and Mayson (Edwards), kit 140321, and asked them to test for DF41.

I couldn't find Laughlin or Baker. Do you know how I can contact them?
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #194 on: September 24, 2012, 08:54:53 PM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia. Biggest problem is, only one has tested 67 markers, so it's not easy to see if these people are L21+. This appears to be highly relevant, as a bit further away from the center of the cluster, the percentage of U106 increases dramatically, possibly as a result of DYS390=23.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


I emailed Kendle, kit 195898, and Mayson (Edwards), kit 140321, and asked them to test for DF41.

I couldn't find Laughlin or Baker. Do you know how I can contact them?

Oh, Peter, you also mentioned the surname Douglas in your last post above. Where did you find that one? That one is new to me.
Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #195 on: September 24, 2012, 10:21:37 PM »

Hebert has ordered DF41. I keep waiting for the result to appear. He is on the outskirts of our cluster, so I am really interested in his result.

Looking in a bit more detail at things, one could easily get the first impression that the first outskirt ring of your Stevens/Webb/Douglas/Cooper/Price/Selfe Cluster in addition to 4568-Herbert consists of 195898-Kendle, 39789-Baker, 50358-Laughlin and 140321-Edwards. Unfortunately, none of the owners of these kits has ventured into any SNP-testing afaia. Biggest problem is, only one has tested 67 markers, so it's not easy to see if these people are L21+. This appears to be highly relevant, as a bit further away from the center of the cluster, the percentage of U106 increases dramatically, possibly as a result of DYS390=23.

BTW, "Stevens Cluster" might be just a wee bit more practical. $:-)


I emailed Kendle, kit 195898, and Mayson (Edwards), kit 140321, and asked them to test for DF41.

I couldn't find Laughlin or Baker. Do you know how I can contact them?

I think it would be better to wait a little with Laughlin until more results are available. On second look his match to the cluster motif is far too weak for testing in this phase. BTW, it would be nice to have a rough idea of the age of the cluster or at least of the age of the DYS385b=11 fence.

Baker is in the Baker Surname Project, but you could also try sending him a message via Y-Search at GDC7F.

Oh, Peter, you also mentioned the surname Douglas in your last post above. Where did you find that one? That one is new to me.

Douglas is the name of an ancestor of one of the members of the Webb family. He entered my sheets because he is in a project that has switched off name display. I then normally use the name of the ancestor but in this case that turned out to be confusing.

BTW, as you are sending messages, it looks like the Webb surname project has switched off display of SNP testing results. That often means, the admins don't have a clue as to what that option refers to, but for analysis purposes it is most inconvenient.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 10:25:48 PM by Peter M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #196 on: September 25, 2012, 03:56:03 AM »

I didn't see an FTDNA Baker DNA project. I usually don't try sorting through off-FTDNA-site projects. Often it takes forever to find the actual y-dna test results and wading through pages of family-specific lore that is of little interest to outsiders. I'll look at WFN projects, but I didn't see one for the Bakers.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #197 on: September 25, 2012, 04:01:03 AM »

No new DF41 results. There are still a bunch awaiting resolution. Maybe tonight we'll get some.
Logged

df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #198 on: September 25, 2012, 08:23:46 AM »

I didn't see an FTDNA Baker DNA project. I usually don't try sorting through off-FTDNA-site projects. Often it takes forever to find the actual y-dna test results and wading through pages of family-specific lore that is of little interest to outsiders. I'll look at WFN projects, but I didn't see one for the Bakers.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/baker/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

I general start off by googling for "kit# surname DNA", and much of the time I can immediately find a page where results are displayed.  Some FTDNA projects have a public page, but do not include their project in the the projects index.

--david
Logged
k.o.gran
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #199 on: September 25, 2012, 01:16:18 PM »

I general start off by googling for "kit# surname DNA", and much of the time I can immediately find a page where results are displayed.  Some FTDNA projects have a public page, but do not include their project in the the projects index.

--david

I prefer "kit# site:familytreedna.com". If the person is in any project with public webpages enabled, it will show as a result.

-Kai
Logged

R-DF63+
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.172 seconds with 19 queries.