Can anyone Predict my Subhaplogroup and which SNPS to Test?

[saje]

Hi,

I am predicted R1b at FTDNA from a 67 ydna test.  From there I tested only one SNP and it was positive - Z2105+.  Can anyone tell me if they think I'll be positive for L584 and L277 by looking at my ysearch?

User ID: XQE85

And, what if I test negative for both tests?  Are we waiting for new SNPs to be discovered?

Thanks

[gtc]

I don't know if you're more likely to be L584 and L277 or both, but you sure struck it lucky to get to Z2105 in just one test. Many of us have endured numerous negative SNP tests on the way to our current terminal SNP.

There are "fresh" R1b SNPs on the Geno 2 chip and we are waiting to see what effect they have on the R1b tree. We hope to know about that in the very near future when male Geno 2 test results start to be published.

Edit: News from an ISOGG Committee member is that NG and FTDNA are holding up the release of male Geno 2 results for another one to two weeks while they try to sort out the Y-tree which has been radically changed, especially in haplogroups I, J and R, by the results they are seeing.

[saje]

An administrator predicted that I would be positive for z2105 and he was correct!  Pretty amazing.  Thats why I asked if anyone knew if I'd be positive for anything downstream before spending the money.

It's interesting that theyre holding back results.  I do believe theres been lots of changes especially in R. Im not sure Geno 2 tests L277 or L584. 

What is long hand for z2105+?  And does testing positive for 2105 mean that I'll have to be positive for Either one L277 or L584?

[gtc]

I think you can forget about longhand names as FTDNA and probably others are abandoning them as being too hard to manage nowadays with the rapidity of tree changes.

Suggest holding fire with tree-related questions until the Geno 2 results are released in a week or two and then for those who do "tree arrangement" to have the opportunity to redraw it.

[OConnor]

I agree you are lucky to have found a possitive snp. In the past I have been tested possitive for L159.2....I rode that wave for about a year, convincing other people with sequences similar to mine to test for R-L159.2

I decided to test my second cousin after someone questioned my possitive assessment. It turned out my cousin was R-L159.2-. After a re-testing I was found to be R-L159.2-......I am wondering if there were any other mistakes?..could I be possitive for an snp which I have been reported to be negative? If so, I could end up testing for all other downstream markers till hell freezes over. FTDNA really screwed-up my confidence in their testing.

I never got an explanation or an apology for the screw-up.  They did however credit me with the money I spent on unecessary testing. It still leaves me shaking my head.

Perhaps after all the time wasted, and loss of my confidence in ftdna, perhaps they should put my sample through geno-2 for no cost to me..to prove they didn't screw up on any other snp tests.
I paid my dues $$$ attaining my DF13** status. Do you think I should be retested through geno-2?

[gtc]

I agree you are lucky to have found a possitive snp. In the past I have been tested possitive for L159.2....I rode that wave for about a year, convincing some people with sequences similar to mine to test for R-L159.2

I decided to test my second cousin after someone questioned my possitive assessment. It turned out my cousin was R-L159.2-. After a re-testing I was found to be R-L159.2-......I am wondering if there were any other mistakes?..could I be possitive for an snp which I have been reported to be negative? If so, I could end up testing for all other downstream markers till hell freezes over. FTDNA really screwed-up my confidence in their testing.

SNPs with .x format (e.g. L159.2), because they appear in more than one position on the tree, are considered unreliable for testing purposes compared to SNPs which appear in just the one place. In fact Thomas Krahn who heads up FTDNA's test lab won't register any new .x SNPs once they get to (IIRC) the .4 stage because he considers them too unreliable to adjudicate on. (Frankly, I think he'd be glad to be rid of all .x SNPs.)

So, on that basis, I'm not surprised to learn that your R-L159.2 status was reversed on "re-count" but I can understand your being miffed by it.

[OConnor]

Then if there was any question about an snp's reliability..a second test should have been done to confirm their findings. Otherwise I am but $$$ in their pocket. I don't want to be taken advantage of financially...especially if there was some doubt in their testing of this marker in the first place. I was not advised that my test could be wrong.
If they sell it...it should be a reliable product. And how could I test + and - to this marker?

[gtc]

Then if there was any question about an snp's reliability..a second test should have been done to confirm their findings. Otherwise I am but $$$ in their pocket. I don't want to be taken advantage of financially...especially if there was some doubt in their testing of this marker in the first place. I was not advised that my test could be wrong.
If they sell it...it should be a reliable product. And how could I test + and - to this marker?

We are wandering off the thread topic here, but I would say that FTDNA takes its testing quality very seriously and they will will retest if they think there has been an error or they cannot get a good enough "read".

I note that you subsequently added that FTDNA credited you for the test, so at least you were not out of pocket.

If you want an explanation of your particular case, then the best place to ask for that is FTDNA.

Now, back to the topic ...