Will Jones' L21- Z245+ L459+ Result Hold Up?

[Mark Jost]

So if Jones' sample portion which was being used for L21 testing was mixed up in 2009 and if the remaining tests for Jones used Jones' correct dna sample, then now he is L21+ solves the issue.

But Thomas must think there is a shred of doubt and is going to test everything since then as well. If that is true, Now there is a doubt the entire sample is mixed up then who is the L21-, L459+ and Z245+ guy?

MJost

[rms2]

This is perhaps a nit picky point, but this is kind of a nit picky hobby. :)

Jones tested L21- in 2009 (with a nice, clear trace). Jones tested L21+ L459+ Z245+ in 2012 (again, nice clear traces).

We don't know which (if either) of the two samples was actually his, thus Thomas requesting a new sample with the plan of doing a complete re-test.

So while we can say there is no known Z245+ L459+ L21- sample, we cannot make any statement about Jones' SNP test results, as we don't know which (if any) are actually his.

Regards,
david

I noticed that, too.

Jones probably really is L21+. Some kind of screw up occurred in 2009; that's my guess.

[rms2]

So if Jones' sample portion which was being used for L21 testing was mixed up in 2009 and if the remaining tests for Jones used Jones' correct dna sample, then now he is L21+ solves the issue.

But Thomas must think there is a shred of doubt and is going to test everything since then as well. If that is true, Now there is a doubt the entire sample is mixed up then who is the L21-, L459+ and Z245+ guy?

MJost

L459 and Z245 weren't being tested in 2009, so there is no L21- L459+ Z245+ guy. The L21- negative is probably the mistake and dates to 2009. The L459+ and Z245+, and, subsequently, L21+, are more recent results actually run on the real Jones (that's my opinion, anyway).

They either tested the wrong guy in 2009 or mixed up Jones' paperwork back in 2009, or some such screw up. The more recent results are the real deal.

[rms2]

The main reason I guessed rightly in this case is because over the years as a project administrator I have been privy to a number of such do-overs. I have even been the one on more than one occasion to go to bat for guys who were given results that did not jive with their haplotypes and/or close matches, and I have seen corrections ultimately made to their SNP test results. I remember one guy who really plainly had the "Niall of the Nine Hostages" haplotype and got an L21- M222- result initially and was labeled R-P312. He didn't know the difference and let it stand. I wrote FTDNA and got a retest. Of course, on the retest he came up L21+ M222+. (Funny thing: he turned up later in my Family Finder matches!) That one was really obvious, but some of the others were less obvious.

I could provide other examples, but I'll stop there.

I still have confidence in SNP testing. Mistakes are relatively rare. But they do happen.

I had my doubts about Jones because of those things I have seen in the past, and for pretty much the same reasons Alan described in his last post above.

[rms2]

The main reason I guessed rightly in this case is because over the years as a project administrator I have been privy to a number of such do-overs. I have even been the one on more than one occasion to go to bat for guys who were given results that did not jive with their haplotypes and/or close matches, and I have seen corrections ultimately made to their SNP test results. I remember one guy who really plainly had the "Niall of the Nine Hostages" haplotype and got an L21- M222- result initially and was labeled R-P312. He didn't know the difference and let it stand. I wrote FTDNA and got a retest. Of course, on the retest he came up L21+ M222+. (Funny thing: he turned up later in my Family Finder matches!) That one was really obvious, but some of the others were less obvious.

I could provide other examples, but I'll stop there.

I still have confidence in SNP testing. Mistakes are relatively rare. But they do happen.

I had my doubts about Jones because of those things I have seen in the past, and for pretty much the same reasons Alan described in his last post above.

Oh, I locked up the voting, since the thing is done.

Like Alan said, the Celtic Fringe is too solidly DF13+ to be harboring the signpost to the origin of L21. Had Jones been a Jacques or something like that, I would have been more convinced.

[Mikewww]

Another strange result.  Am I reading this right?

From the DF21 project Y DNA SNP report:

161731    Richard Lyon of Fairfield (~1613-1678)    R1b1a2a1a1b4    R-L21    DF21+, DF25+, DF5+, L1-, L144-, L159.2-, L172-, L193-, L2-, L20-, L21+, L226-, L23+, L4-, L459-, L49+, L627-, L658-, L96-, M126-, M153-, M160-, M222-, M306+, M335-, M343+, M37-, P224+, P311+, P312+, P314.2-, P66-, U106-, V45-, V88-, Z245+, Z246+, Z248+, Z254-

Do you see the L459- in there? Doesn't make sense with a DF21+ guy, which is downstream of L21+.

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me.

[rms2]

Must be an error.

[df.reynolds]

Another strange result.  Am I reading this right?

From the DF21 project Y DNA SNP report:

161731    Richard Lyon of Fairfield (~1613-1678)    R1b1a2a1a1b4    R-L21    DF21+, DF25+, DF5+, L1-, L144-, L159.2-, L172-, L193-, L2-, L20-, L21+, L226-, L23+, L4-, L459-, L49+, L627-, L658-, L96-, M126-, M153-, M160-, M222-, M306+, M335-, M343+, M37-, P224+, P311+, P312+, P314.2-, P66-, U106-, V45-, V88-, Z245+, Z246+, Z248+, Z254-

Do you see the L459- in there? Doesn't make sense with a DF21+ guy, which is downstream of L21+.

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me.

I documented this situation at:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-df21/default.aspx?section=results

Regards,
david

[OConnor]

One issue I see is that many folks are not well enough versed with the mechanics of DNA testing to spot anomalous results.

I'd certainly agree (for a variety of reasons) that all of the unclusterable L21* guys should order DF13.

However, we are not always lucky enough to have enough comparative data to determine what might be an anomaly. In this case, Jones was as close, STR-wise, to P312+ L21- folks as he was to L21+ folks. 

I guess this is why you should recruit at least one 2nd cousin for testing and hope he matches you like he is supposed to. You wouldn't need 67 markers, but the lesson learned is to test the terminal SNP, if for no other reasons than has a cross-check.

Testing my Father's second cousin uncovered my L159.2+ error.
FTDNA credited me with the funds that I had spent on the testing.

[Mikewww]

Another strange result.  Am I reading this right?

From the DF21 project Y DNA SNP report:

161731    Richard Lyon of Fairfield (~1613-1678)    R1b1a2a1a1b4    R-L21    DF21+, DF25+, DF5+, L1-, L144-, L159.2-, L172-, L193-, L2-, L20-, L21+, L226-, L23+, L4-, L459-, L49+, L627-, L658-, L96-, M126-, M153-, M160-, M222-, M306+, M335-, M343+, M37-, P224+, P311+, P312+, P314.2-, P66-, U106-, V45-, V88-, Z245+, Z246+, Z248+, Z254-

Do you see the L459- in there? Doesn't make sense with a DF21+ guy, which is downstream of L21+.

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me.

I documented this situation at:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-df21/default.aspx?section=results

Regards,
david

I may be a simpleton, but why would FTDNA report a "no read" or "null read" as either "L459?" or even easier, don't report the call at all in the haplotree?

It's better to report nothing that something that can be logically misinterpeted. It's not ancestral, so "L459-" should not be reported.  FTDNA's reporting IS their product.

I know it's probably an I/T challenge, but this should be on their development requirements for the next update.

[df.reynolds]

I may be a simpleton, but why would FTDNA report a "no read" or "null read" as either "L459?" or even easier, don't report the call at all in the haplotree?

It's better to report nothing that something that can be logically misinterpeted. It's not ancestral, so "L459-" should not be reported.  FTDNA's reporting IS their product.

I know it's probably an I/T challenge, but this should be on their development requirements for the next update.

To my mind, listing NULL L459 as L459- is an error, pure and simple.

--david

[rms2]

I may be a simpleton, but why would FTDNA report a "no read" or "null read" as either "L459?" or even easier, don't report the call at all in the haplotree?

It's better to report nothing that something that can be logically misinterpeted. It's not ancestral, so "L459-" should not be reported.  FTDNA's reporting IS their product.

I know it's probably an I/T challenge, but this should be on their development requirements for the next update.

To my mind, listing NULL L459 as L459- is an error, pure and simple.

--david

I agree. Some other more accurate form of notation should be devised.