What is R1b1b2a1a1a at 23andMe?

[Solothurn]

Hi all

A 'cousin' is R1b1b2a1a1a on 23andMe. Is this U106* or a subclade?

I ask as the kits I manage have only low (0-6 of over 500 per kit) matches.

Ysearch 8ZN8K

Thanks

[gtc]

Although not as bad as FTDNA, I gather that 23andMe is also pretty far behind the action. This is what I found on their site:

"We have worked primarily with the December 2008 ISOGG paternal haplogroup tree as a basis for updating our own.  Even since then, some paternal haplogroups been updated significantly.  So for these rapidly evolving haplogroups, we used the May 2009 ISOGG paternal haplogroup tree as a reference. The end result is a very detailed and up-to-date paternal haplogroup assignment for each of our male customers."

So, if they are still using ISOGG 2009, I believe that R1b1b2a1a1a is U198.

[Solothurn]

Thanks gtc

If testing companies cannot keep up with the ISOGG terminology, they should adopt the shorthand names: U198, U106. U152 etc!

Or is this too much to expect?

Although not as bad as FTDNA, I gather that 23andMe is also pretty far behind the action. This is what I found on their site:

"We have worked primarily with the December 2008 ISOGG paternal haplogroup tree as a basis for updating our own.  Even since then, some paternal haplogroups been updated significantly.  So for these rapidly evolving haplogroups, we used the May 2009 ISOGG paternal haplogroup tree as a reference. The end result is a very detailed and up-to-date paternal haplogroup assignment for each of our male customers."

So, if they are still using ISOGG 2009, I believe that R1b1b2a1a1a is U198.

[Mikewww]

Thanks gtc

If testing companies cannot keep up with the ISOGG terminology, they should adopt the shorthand names: U198, U106. U152 etc!

Or is this too much to expect?

There is a little bit of a catch-22 in this. If a testing institution can't keep up with ISOGG and all of the branching then they won't know which SNP is the terminal SNP. It would be particularly confusing for one of the repetitive SNPs, like L176 that shows up in both R1a and R1b. It's important to look at a suspected terminal SNP result in context of other other SNP results... hence, there is a need to stay up with the branching of the Y DNA tree regardless of how you put it on a report.

EDIT: I do support using the terminal SNP based haplogroup labeling. It just doesn't solve the testing company's problems though.

[gtc]

Thanks gtc

If testing companies cannot keep up with the ISOGG terminology, they should adopt the shorthand names: U198, U106. U152 etc!

Or is this too much to expect?

I agree, and FTDNA has already flagged its intention to do just that.