PDA

View Full Version : FTDNA New YDNA Haplotree



Tįltos
04-23-2014, 03:09 PM
Hi guys thought you might be interested. I just noticed this posted on my FTDNA login page "The new Y-DNA Haplotree will be released in 36:54:28". The clock is obviously counting down on it.

GTC
04-23-2014, 03:15 PM
More info here:

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-2014-y-dna-haplotree-and-special.html

Clinton P
04-23-2014, 03:45 PM
You can view the original notification at the GAP Weekly Update here (https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=27&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=706).

Clinton P

Mehrdad
04-23-2014, 04:00 PM
If they start offering downstream SNP tests some people may not have to buy the Big Y.

Tįltos
04-23-2014, 04:09 PM
Hmm, and the Krahns just announced their early Father's Day sale on SNPs. Competition is a good thing.

Heber
04-23-2014, 04:24 PM
The announcement says 1,000 terminal branch tree however I understood from previous discussion that the new 2014 Y-Tree would contain more than 6,000 SNPs where the current 2010 era Y-Tree is based on about 860 SNPs. I presume this is the Y-Tree FTDNA and Genographic are working on that CTS will comment on in May.
That still leaves the ISOGG 2014 draft Y-Tree and Jim Wilsons S series Y-Tree and others such as Chris Morley draft Tree and Alex Williamsons L21 Tree.
With a Big Y test yielding 25K - 50K+ SNPs and FGC yielding many more and the average tester being positive for 1K+ SNPs and many new SNPs and "thousands" of tests in the pipeline there remains a lot a work to do in positioning newly discovered SNPs onto the Phylogenetic Tree.
This new tree is likely to be out of date by the time it is published. Lets hope there are frequent updates (six months rather than four years). The fact that the Y-Trees use different naming conventions will not help the task. At least they will adopt the abbreviated notation.

jdean
04-23-2014, 06:51 PM
Hi guys thought you might be interested. I just noticed this posted on my FTDNA login page "The new Y-DNA Haplotree will be released in 36:54:28". The clock is obviously counting down on it.


FTDNA are really tempting fate with that clock !!!

I'm betting their server will gets blown out of the water the moment it hits zero with thousands of desperate DNA druggies simultaneously logging in : )

Tįltos
04-23-2014, 07:11 PM
FTDNA are really tempting fate with that clock !!!

I'm betting their server will gets blown out of the water the moment it hits zero with thousands of desperate DNA druggies simultaneously logging in : )
LMAO! So true! :laugh:

Joe B
04-23-2014, 07:20 PM
Will this new tree be limited by the SNPs that can be ordered from FTDNA? If so, we may be talking circa 2012 for some of us. Hope they surprise me.

MitchellSince1893
04-23-2014, 07:53 PM
I will be surprised if the U152 part of the tree is up to date as the U152 tree that Richard Rocca maintains.

GoldenHind
04-23-2014, 08:40 PM
It will be extremely interesting to see which of the recent SNPs are included, and which aren't.

jdean
04-23-2014, 11:45 PM
Everything on the Ą la carte menu I'm sure, including DF99 & DF49 of course : )_

GTC
04-24-2014, 02:56 AM
Yes, the FTDNA Y haplotree will be out of date before it's published, but it will be far better than the never-revised embarrassment that they have had in place for around 4 years.

To date, for haplotree purposes FTDNA's policy has been to only "officially" recognize SNPs published by academia. In this case I gather they are using the National Genographic Project (presumably Spencer Wells) as the author.

GoldenHind
04-24-2014, 03:39 AM
Everything on the Ą la carte menu I'm sure, including DF99 & DF49 of course : )_

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism, especially if they base it on the National Genographic tree rather than that of ISOGG.

rivergirl
04-24-2014, 04:03 AM
FTDNA are really tempting fate with that clock !!!

I'm betting their server will gets blown out of the water the moment it hits zero with thousands of desperate DNA druggies simultaneously logging in : )

My computer has the FTDNA clock as; "The new Y-DNA Haplotree will be released in 11.59.43'

But then I live in Australia GMT+8 not the US, so will we get the Haplotree earlier over here, I doubt it.

jdean
04-24-2014, 10:33 AM
My computer has the FTDNA clock as; "The new Y-DNA Haplotree will be released in 11.59.43'

But then I live in Australia GMT+8 not the US, so will we get the Haplotree earlier over here, I doubt it.

Trust FTDNA to have a technical problem with there clock : )

Reading between the lines it looks like the clock is set to countdown to midnight 25th April local time.

I'm guessing it should be midnight FTDNA Mean Time, or 7.00 GMT

rivergirl
04-24-2014, 10:59 AM
I hope you mean midnight on the 24th April, as in 24.00 hours on the 24th and 00.01 hours on the 25th. (US time obviously)
FTDNAs webpage is telling me it has 5 hours to go, and it's is the evening of the 24th where I live.
:):)
Can't wait.....:)

lgmayka
04-24-2014, 11:16 AM
I'm guessing it should be midnight FTDNA Mean Time, or 7.00 GMT
As far as I know, past FTDNA sales have always used American Central Time, which at this time of year (Daylight Savings) is 5 hours behind GMT.

rms2
04-24-2014, 07:14 PM
Over at FTDNA's forum, GTC posted the news that FTDNA will update its y haplotree tomorrow. He may have posted the same thing here, but I haven't seen it, so I thought I would mention it.

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-2014-y-dna-haplotree-and-special.html

That should make things interesting. It's been kind of dull around here lately.

MitchellSince1893
04-24-2014, 10:12 PM
... It's been kind of dull around here lately.

The aftermath of the first wave of the SNP tsunami?

CelticGerman
04-24-2014, 10:24 PM
FTDNA: "We need to delay our scheduled release of the updated Y-DNA Haplotree. We apologize for the late notice and will provide more information as it becomes available." Why I'm not surprised??????

lgmayka
04-24-2014, 10:30 PM
FTDNA was "tempting fate" by running that countdown clock. ;)

GoldenHind
04-24-2014, 10:34 PM
I read elsewhere on this forum that the new haplotree has now been postponed, and it appears the countdown clock has now disappeared. It comes as no surprise to me.

jdean
04-24-2014, 10:54 PM
I read elsewhere on this forum that the new haplotree has now been postponed, and it appears the countdown clock has now disappeared. It comes as no surprise to me.

The exact words out of my mouth when I saw the announcement was 'priceless'

I love FTDNA for the opportunities they provide but why on earth do they keep giving deadlines ? Surly they should have learnt by now that they aren't their strong point : )

leonardo
04-24-2014, 11:11 PM
The exact words out of my mouth when I saw the announcement was 'priceless'

I love FTDNA for the opportunities they provide but why on earth do they keep giving deadlines ? Surly they should have learnt by now that they aren't their strong point : )

My sentiments exactly.

Joe B
04-25-2014, 12:42 AM
My sentiments exactly.
How does that saying go? Something about past behavior is the best predictor of future behavoir.
Does that mean the webinar is off for tomorrow?

rms2
04-25-2014, 12:44 AM
FTDNA: "We need to delay our scheduled release of the updated Y-DNA Haplotree. We apologize for the late notice and will provide more information as it becomes available." Why I'm not surprised??????

Oh, crud! I was really looking forward to the new tree and the possibility of updated y-haplogroup designators in FTDNA's various projects.

I was really wondering which designators FTDNA would use. If they go with Big Y nomenclature, my shorthand designator will be R-CTS6581, because DF41 is known as CTS6581 in Big Y results.

Tįltos
04-25-2014, 02:47 AM
Well I just looked at my login in page and the big clock has a countdown for 11:16:29 right now. I haven't looked at it all day, but from what I have been reading in this thread and the other one a possible delay? Well hopefully it all goes off without a hitch in about 11 hours. :pray:

Maybe one of the moderators here will want to merge these threads? http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2473-FTDNA-New-YDNA-Haplotree

GTC
04-25-2014, 02:56 AM
Threads merged into the FTDNA section.

Stephen1986
04-25-2014, 09:42 AM
On FTDNA I can see a clock saying that the haplotree will be released in 4 hours and 17 minutes.

GTC
04-25-2014, 11:16 AM
On FTDNA I can see a clock saying that the haplotree will be released in 4 hours and 17 minutes.

Yes, the latest stated release time is 10am EST ... at which time I guess FTDNA's server will be hit with a tsunami of viewer transactions.

rms2
04-25-2014, 11:45 AM
Hopefully they really will do the update sometime today. I'm looking forward to seeing if they also update the y haplogroup designators that one sees on the public web sites of the various projects and on one's myFTDNA pages.

I'd like to see my real (for the time being) terminal SNP listed instead of one that I moved beyond a couple of years ago.

GTC
04-25-2014, 11:55 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing if they also update the y haplogroup designators that one sees on the public web sites of the various projects and on one's myFTDNA pages.


My expectation is that all such references will be updated to reflect the "terminal" SNP as per their new tree. IMO anything less would create confusion.

They have said for a long time that they will cease using the long alpha numerical designations when the new tree is implemented, so I hope they stick by that.

GTC
04-25-2014, 01:59 PM
My new haplotree view is up. Ysearch is same old same old. Projects not updated either. Boo!

GTC
04-25-2014, 02:02 PM
And the countdown clock is now running backwards ... ooops. LOL!

Muircheartaigh
04-25-2014, 02:10 PM
My new haplotree view is up. Ysearch is same old same old. Projects not updated either. Boo!

Mine too Z253 which I have been since December 2011. Seems that there's nothing down stream that matches my dozens of new SNPs from Big Y and FGC results.

Ray

jdean
04-25-2014, 02:14 PM
We'll it's here at last, and to say I'm feeling uncharacteristically miffed is putting it mildly !!!

GTC
04-25-2014, 02:17 PM
Mine too Z253 which I have been since December 2011. Seems that there's nothing down stream that matches my dozens of new SNPs from Big Y and FGC results.


FGC are competitors, and I guess BIG Y results are still being sorted out by project leaders (not FTDNA).

The time will quickly come I think when these competing companies will need to adopt a central, company-neutral, Y tree. I guess that function could be provided by ISOGG if ISOGG can get some sort of official accreditation by academia.

Dubhthach
04-25-2014, 02:32 PM
I'm now:
R1b1a1a1a1a1g = R-CTS2501

Now that's interesting, they went with CTS2501 instead of DF41 (CTS6581)

-Paul
(DF41+)

Heber
04-25-2014, 02:32 PM
I just checked my terminal SNP which is now DF21 for the first time despite the fact that I was tested positive in 7/7/2012.
No sign of my S5456 FGC result and of course dozens of my new SNPs downstream of DF21.
I wonder if Genographic will now feel empowered to release the detailed results of the Mayo and Asturias projects or wait until after the DNA in Forensics conference in May, where CTS will comment on the new Tree.
With several alternative detailed trees available ISOGG, Morley, Williamson, YFull, Fudan etc. it is only a matter of time before all the competing vendors subscribe to a neutral third party such as ISOGG to manage the standards.
If the telecommunications industry did not have neutral standards bodies such as ITU, GSMA, TMF etc. we would be unable to make phone calls.

Dubhthach
04-25-2014, 02:34 PM
What the hell, no DF13, no DF63, no L563 or L744 ffs somewhat of an improvement but not by much. It's only for fact that I personally tested CTS2501 that I'm had an update in my haplogroup. Anyone who has just tested for DF41 will still show up as either R-M269 or R-L21, what year is it again?

-Paul
(DF41+)

Dubhthach
04-25-2014, 02:43 PM
I've found a major clanger. When looking at the DF41 Coloured results file I see that one of our members is classified as:
R1b1a1a1a1a1b1i

Rest of us (including myself show up as)
R1b1a1a1a1a1g

The particular member (Bettcher) is said to be R-CTS12173, which is listed as a subclade under M222. However he tested DF41 individually last year and came back as DF41+ he also belongs to a specific DF41 cluster.

Seems they didn't do proper QA on what SNP's to add to their list!

Edit: Bettcher is also confirmed as CTS2501+ (from Geno 2.0 testing), that confirms to me that CTS12173 is an unreliable SNP if it also shows up in M222!
-Paul
(DF41+)

MitchellSince1893
04-25-2014, 02:48 PM
Just looking at my branch of the new tree...

They added Z49 and Z150 below u152>L2 but forgot to add z142 which is in between Z49 and Z150. I brought this to their attention on the ftdna forum

Dubhthach
04-25-2014, 02:55 PM
No DF27! That's even bigger clanger if ye ask me. It seems they basically built this out of Geno 2.0 tree and didn't account for anything else (ISOGG?). In the Ireland project I can see men who are in Haplogroup I who are CTS12173+ (from Geno 2.0) ffs.

lgmayka
04-25-2014, 02:58 PM
It is clear that this is really the Geno 2.0 haplotree. National Geographic was in the driver's seat; FTDNA was only a passenger.

- L1025 and L1029 are missing, even though they were discovered by FTDNA WTY tests and have been on the ISOGG haplotree for 2 years.

- Even worse, L550 (also discovered by WTY) is missing even though it has been on the ISOGG tree for 3 years!

AJL
04-25-2014, 03:13 PM
I've found a major clanger. When looking at the DF41 Coloured results file I see that one of our members is classified as:
R1b1a1a1a1a1b1i

Rest of us (including myself show up as)
R1b1a1a1a1a1g

The particular member (Bettcher) is said to be R-CTS12173, which is listed as a subclade under M222. However he tested DF41 individually last year and came back as DF41+ he also belongs to a specific DF41 cluster.

Seems they didn't do proper QA on what SNP's to add to their list!

Edit: Bettcher is also confirmed as CTS2501+ (from Geno 2.0 testing), that confirms to me that CTS12173 is an unreliable SNP if it also shows up in M222!
-Paul
(DF41+)

Might there be issues with false positives for M222? I also see CTS6, which as far as I know is only in R1a-Z94, under M222.

JaG
04-25-2014, 03:13 PM
It's a total disgrace. I wonder if a human being looked over this software-produced junk.

GTC
04-25-2014, 03:17 PM
It is clear that this is really the Geno 2.0 haplotree. National Geographic was in the driver's seat; FTDNA was only a passenger.


That's a good way of putting it.

FTDNA has always had a hands-off approach to their published haplotree. They rely on their current favorite academic to advise them. At the moment I guess that's Spencer Wells.

GTC
04-25-2014, 03:19 PM
It's a total disgrace. I wonder if a human being looked over this software-produced junk.

Regardless of the content, the wonder for me, given FTDNA IT's woeful record of SNAFUs around software revisions and implementations, is that it hasn't crashed my browser ... yet.

AJL
04-25-2014, 03:42 PM
Well, I can't get the Group Administrator Page working now. Who's surprised? :)

seferhabahir
04-25-2014, 03:46 PM
One of the worst things about this roll-out is that the haplogroup designations in the public project web pages are now automatically reflecting their new tree (well Genographic's tree). This presents massive issues because the tree was obviously computer generated and not sanity checked very well. For example, in the R2 project there are now people listed as P1 and J2 because of misunderstanding of certain SNPs. I hope someone is watching the boards because I'm sure there will be lots of complaints from project group admins. I'm afraid to even go look at some of the other projects I keep track of on a regular basis. Well, at least they met their deadline.

GTC
04-25-2014, 03:55 PM
One of the worst things about this roll-out is that the haplogroup designations in the public project web pages are now automatically reflecting their new tree (well Genographic's tree). This presents massive issues because the tree was obviously computer generated and not sanity checked very well. For example, in the R2 project there are now people listed as P1 and J2 because of misunderstanding of certain SNPs. I hope someone is watching the boards because I'm sure there will be lots of complaints from project group admins. I'm afraid to even go look at some of the other projects I keep track of on a regular basis. Well, at least they met their deadline.

So, they are now updating the projects? I can't see mine because I get the dreaded "Houston, we have a problem" error page at the moment.

As for misclassifications, one fellow here has reported that he has gone from R-M173 to P-M45.

rms2
04-25-2014, 04:04 PM
This is disappointing to say the least. They went with the least thorough of the recent big SNP tests: Geno 2.0. Now I am R-CTS2501.

I had a feeling that might be the case, since that is what my dad has had on his myFTDNA pages since I transferred his Geno 2.0 results over to FTDNA way back when.

Michał
04-25-2014, 04:13 PM
What worries me the most is that FTDNA has just sent emails to all customers letting them know about a new tree and the reduced prices for all SNPs. This has already started a wave of non-relevant orders from our project members, as the new haplotree is missing many "terminal" SNPs, and FTDNA encourages people (on their FTDNA haplotree pages) to order some useless SNPs for a reduced price. Shame on them!

GTC
04-25-2014, 04:17 PM
What worries me the most is that FTDNA has just sent emails to all customers letting them know about a new tree and the reduced prices for all SNPs. This has already started a wave of non-relevant orders from our project members, as the new haplotree is missing many "terminal" SNPs, and FTDNA encourages people (on their FTDNA haplotree pages) to order some useless SNPs for a reduced price. Shame on them!

Well, that's a disaster. Somebody should tell Bennett Greenspan to close the ordering system down until the debacle is sorted out.

RCO
04-25-2014, 04:35 PM
What I wrote in the other fora - A gross mistake and scientific ignorance in the FTDNA Y DNA J1 new tree
Regrettably our J1-M365 historical SNP was made disappeared in the new tree (25/04/2014). M365 was among the first J1 SNPs discovered in 2004 and included in several articles (Cinnioglu, Semino, Underhill, Cavalli-Sforza, Karafet, etc) and classified by the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. M365 was included in the old FTDNA deep clade J test and several researchers paid to test this SNP, found in a J1 related homogeneous STR cluster. I know the position of my J1 SNPs because I had the Full Genomes Y chromosome sequencing and I wrote a note of research freely available in the internet, but if someone in the FTDNA personnel is ignorant of the order of M365 in the tree at least they could keep the SNP under J1 M267 and not try to complete erase the SNP and the letter from the new artificial tree. We were J1b J1-M365+ and now we are back to J1-M267. A sad regression ! Yes, we are a specific group from Western Europe, Christian background and our Ancestors in Iberia met other well-known completely different types of J1 of Muslim and Jewish origins and we know very well what happened in the History of Portugal and in Brazil. So, please, we would like to have our M365+ back to the J1 tree because ignorance will not rewrite the J1 phylogenetic tree. We have always fought and won for our causes.

Joe B
04-25-2014, 04:37 PM
Well, that's a disaster. Somebody should tell Bennett Greenspan to close the ordering system down until the debacle is sorted out.
One would think that FTDNA would consider building a phylogenetic tree a core competency of the company. I'm very worried for FTDNA as this is not a good sign.

GTC
04-25-2014, 04:47 PM
One would think that FTDNA would consider building a phylogenetic tree a core competency of the company. I'm very worried for FTDNA as this is not a good sign.

IMO it goes deeper. I have been concerned about FTDNA's IT capability for years. From the outside, watching one implementation SNAFU after another, there seems to be no professional systems development methodology in place. I have characterized their approach as that used by the Wright Bros: keep pushing a prototype off a cliff until it flies.

I had high hopes that with Gene By Gene's acquisition of Arpeggi and with Jason Wang being made Chief Technology Office that there would be a major improvement in how things are done within FTDNA IT. So far, I cannot see any difference in that regard.

Little bit
04-25-2014, 04:52 PM
I can't find DF13 on my grandpa's list of snps available and his haplotree & snp's page is not showing him as DF13+ even though he did test positive for it. When I download his printable snp certificate, it does show that he tested positive for DF13, however. It says his confirmed haplogroup is R-L21, long form R1b1a1a1a1a1 evidently, but I believe that conflicts with the 2014 ISOGG (R1b1a2a1a2c L21/M529/S145, L459, S461/Z290)
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

My son's L-226 seems to be in order though I did not check the long form name.

sparkey
04-25-2014, 05:16 PM
This is horrendous. Under I2, they have L68 as phyloequivalent to L460? Huh? I know for a fact that I'm on the L68+ L460- branch of I2. They're even guessing me as some random subclade of I2-M223, which I am not. And want to see something worse? Check out the new haplogroup assignments at the I2b L415 I2c L596 Haplogroup Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=yresults). By defining those subclades out of existence by saying incorrectly that L68=L460, they're assigning members of that project to I2b1a1b and even "N1a1aC" [sic]!

GTC
04-25-2014, 05:53 PM
Now that I can actually access my project data, I see that the tired old R-L48 value that used to be in my shorthand column has been replaced with a blank.

Oh well, I guess that a blank is far better than a random value from an unassociated haplogroup.

Mehrdad
04-25-2014, 05:59 PM
The best they can do for me is R-L657

1774

rms2
04-25-2014, 06:04 PM
I see they're not using the shorthand for y haplogroup designators in the projects' public web sites. I have a green R1b1a1a1a1a1g. Phew!

GTC
04-25-2014, 06:05 PM
I see they're not using the shorthand for y haplogroup designators in the projects' public web sites. I have a green R1b1a1a1a1a1g. Phew!

Looking at your data in a project SNP view (not haplotype view) what is in the shorthand column?

MikeWhalen
04-25-2014, 06:11 PM
Ftdna does some things so well, htf do they mess this up? There is probably no bigger 1 thing thats gaurantied to drive the hyper active-knowlegable customerbase stark raving mad...I have to thinkthere are at least a few smart employes there that have flat foreheads from smacking themselves as they say 'I cant believe we pooched that'

Not even going to check until i see some of the blood in the water is gone

Mike

rockman
04-25-2014, 06:15 PM
I went from R1b-L278 to Haplogroup P-M45

This is what FTDNA says: "The undifferentiated P lineage is a very rare haplogroup in populations at this time. Although it was the ancestral line to haplogroups Q and T it is only found at low frequency in India, Pakistan, and central Asia with a most likely point of origin in either central Asia or the Altai region of Siberia."

GTC
04-25-2014, 06:22 PM
I went from R1b-L278 to Haplogroup P-M45

This is what FTDNA says: "The undifferentiated P lineage is a very rare haplogroup in populations at this time. Although it was the ancestral line to haplogroups Q and T it is only found at low frequency in India, Pakistan, and central Asia with a most likely point of origin in either central Asia or the Altai region of Siberia."

You're the second person to report a similar thing. The system has gone crazy. I'd say stand by for a correction.

rockman
04-25-2014, 06:27 PM
Oh wow, I'm guessing their system is reporting a lot of errors currently? Who else received the same?

GTC
04-25-2014, 06:36 PM
Oh wow, I'm guessing their system is reporting a lot of errors currently?

members are reporting lots of bugs in the tree at present.


Who else received the same?

Not same, but similar (R-M173 to P-M45):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2485-FTDNA-Change-results!!!&p=38307#post38307

GTC
04-25-2014, 06:41 PM
Okay, lots of information on this topic here:

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-new-2014-y-dna-haplotree-has-arrived.html

GoldenHind
04-25-2014, 06:43 PM
No DF27! That's even bigger clanger if ye ask me. It seems they basically built this out of Geno 2.0 tree and didn't account for anything else (ISOGG?).

The omission of DF27, one of the major branches of R1b-P312, is simply inexcusable. In addition Z196, the primary SNP beneath DF27, is also omitted, although Z195 is listed.

Even more irritating to me personally is the omission of P312 subclade L238, which was discovered several years before DF27.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised by the omission of DF99, as it was only announced last summer.

Instead we have several new SNPs listed below P312 which I have never heard of before.

The most unfortunate result of this disaster is that people who should be testing for the omitted SNPs (especially DF27) will now take advantage of FTDNA's sale and order the new SNPs instead of those they likely would have tested positive for had they been properly listed.

Dubhthach
04-25-2014, 06:46 PM
Looking at your data in a project SNP view (not haplotype view) what is in the shorthand column?

R-CTS2501

Which is a SNP that's so far is equivalent to DF41. All project members who've only tested DF41 haven't gotten updated "long form". It's mad, DF41 was known about and on the ISOGG tree before the Geno 2.0 product was even announced.

-Paul
(DF41+)

GTC
04-25-2014, 06:54 PM
Take a look at the link I posted in #70 above.

Kwheaton
04-25-2014, 10:42 PM
One of the worst things about this roll-out is that the haplogroup designations in the public project web pages are now automatically reflecting their new tree (well Genographic's tree). This presents massive issues because the tree was obviously computer generated and not sanity checked very well. For example, in the R2 project there are now people listed as P1 and J2 because of misunderstanding of certain SNPs. I hope someone is watching the boards because I'm sure there will be lots of complaints from project group admins. I'm afraid to even go look at some of the other projects I keep track of on a regular basis. Well, at least they met their deadline.

"This presents massive issues because the tree was obviously computer generated and not sanity checked very well."

Oh please don't check! I did and spent the day on the computer. 3 matching men (descended from the same family) previously in Haplogroup I now 2 are in G (G-P37) the other still in "I".....Huh? I know they did a backbone test and it came out "I"

Then once I checked again the remaining "I" is no longer "I" he has become Haplogroup "F-M89" REALLY? And then when you look at the SNPS they are suggesting you buy really crazy things??? :wacko:

I listened to the Webinar and the whole tree is based on the GENO 2.0 results and does not include the Big Y. I have been rather outspoken about suggesting they pull the recommended tests until they get the problems worked out. The interface looks nice ;) I should come to expect these things by now.....

GoldenHind
04-25-2014, 11:01 PM
Here are a couple of more examples of the confusion and unnecessary SNP orders this new tree is likely to cause.

Someone in the R1b-P312 Project who has tested DF27+ and Z196+ is now being told he can now order an additional 19 SNPs. Of the 19, the only one he is likely to be positive for is Z195. This absurdity is due to the omission of both DF27 and Z196 from the tree.

Another person in the P312 Project who has tested DF99+ and is thus P312>DF99 is now classified U106>Z381>L48>Z28>Z27>R-Z24, even though he tested negative for U106 with Geno 2! This is of course due to the omission of DF99 from the tree.

This idiocy is going to cause massive confusion and a disruption of progress in SNP testing, at least for those subclades that were excluded from the new tree, and a large amount of money wasted testing for SNPs there is no possibility of getting a positive result for.

Kwheaton
04-25-2014, 11:10 PM
Here are a couple of more examples of the confusion and unnecessary SNP orders this new tree is likely to cause.

Someone in the R1b-P312 Project who has tested DF27+ and Z196+ is now being told he can now order an additional 19 SNPs. Of the 19, the only one he is likely to be positive for is Z195. This absurdity is due to the omission of both DF27 and Z196 from the tree.

Another person in the P312 Project who has tested DF99+ and is thus P312>DF99 is now classified U106>Z381>L48>Z28>Z27>R-Z24, even though he tested negative for U106 with Geno 2! This is of course due to the omission of DF99 from the tree.

This idiocy is going to cause massive confusion and a disruption of progress in SNP testing, at least for those subclades that were excluded from the new tree, and a large amount of money wasted testing for SNPs there is no possibility of getting a positive result for.

I have posted on FACEBOOK and in the ISOGG group and sent a Help Desk ticket to FTDNA asking them to STOP auto populating the SNP orders. Its not only confusing if they do not give some thought to stopping it---unethical once the problem has been brought to their attention. I am hoping they do the right thing here.

DMXX
04-25-2014, 11:58 PM
Following a prompt from Zephyrous I just signed into my FTDNA account to find...



http://i58.tinypic.com/2djz0vb.png


...What the actual heck?

Before letting my imagination run as wild as my supposedly P* Altaian great-grandpappy did, I checked the "Tests Taken" column to see whether there was a mistake concerning the R-specific mutations. Lo and behold:



...L747+, L768+, L779+, L82+, M124+, M139+, M168+, M207+, M235+, M294+, M42+, M45+, M479+, M526+, M89+, M94+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P14+, P141+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P151+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P226+, P228+...


Nothing's changed (I'm R2a*-M124) but their automated tree hasn't taken into account all of my SNPs for some reason. Out of all the Y-DNA R mutations, only one is shown in another colour (R2a-L295-).

Not much of an update when I'm downgraded from "R-M207" to P*-M45 when the data indicating my lineage's marker properties are right there.

[Edit]: Just saw seferhabahir's comment. Looks like I'm not the only R2-M479 with a funky allocation.

ZephyrousMandaru
04-26-2014, 12:07 AM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c131/Darth_Azasyahigor/Y-DNAHaplotree.png[/URL]

rms2
04-26-2014, 12:21 AM
It sounds like they will iron out the bugs in coming days, and FTDNA plans another update this year that will incorporate Big Y and "outside sources" (like Chromo2 and Full Genome testing?).

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-new-2014-y-dna-haplotree-has-arrived.html

rms2
04-26-2014, 12:29 AM
Looking at your data in a project SNP view (not haplotype view) what is in the shorthand column?

The Y-DNA SNP page at the R L21 and Subclades Project has a blank space for me in the shorthand column.

jdean
04-26-2014, 12:41 AM
The Y-DNA SNP page at the R L21 and Subclades Project has a blank space for me in the shorthand column.

There are a few folk left with R-L21 against there kits, they also seem to still have the old longhand name 'R1b1a2a1a1b4' on the mane page : )

rms2
04-26-2014, 12:45 AM
There are a few folk left with R-L21 against there kits, they also seem to still have the old longhand name 'R1b1a2a1a1b4' on the mane page : )

I have that longhand "R1b1a1a1a1a1g" in the Haplogroup column. It looks like everyone is armed with a spear (with a pennant) except the little "g" at the end. ;)

jdean
04-26-2014, 12:57 AM
I have that longhand "R1b1a1a1a1a1g" in the Haplogroup column. It looks like everyone is armed with a spear (with a pennant) except the little "g" at the end. ;)

I'm missing a g or anything else at the end of mine since FTDNA (NG?) don't consider DF49* worth mentioning. They've skipped pretty much everything under Z14 as well and amalgamated Z14 with Z18, I find it very hard to believe they couldn't find one Z14+, Z18- in their Geno2 results unless they didn't look very very hard : (

In the mean time they are listing god knows how many SNPs that appear to be singletons, somebody needs to go back to school !!

rivergirl
04-26-2014, 12:58 AM
Just been checking some of my project members haplotrees
Some of the Whelan men are showing L195 (L144) under L21 which is ok.
Others are showing L144 under R-U152, which is incorrect. These guys ordered L144 as a stand alone SNP. Some are also L21 and CTS1751 positive but are still showing up under R-U152.

CTS1751 is added in with L195, though I thought it was above L144/L195.

Most of the other guys seem to be ok.

I don't get the new longhand. R1b1a1a1a1a1p

BMG
04-26-2014, 01:02 AM
Following a prompt from Zephyrous I just signed into my FTDNA account to find...



http://i58.tinypic.com/2djz0vb.png

...What the actual heck?

Before letting my imagination run as wild as my supposedly P* Altaian great-grandpappy did, I checked the "Tests Taken" column to see whether there was a mistake concerning the R-specific mutations. Lo and behold:



...L747+, L768+, L779+, L82+, M124+, M139+, M168+, M207+, M235+, M294+, M42+, M45+, M479+, M526+, M89+, M94+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P14+, P141+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P151+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P226+, P228+...


Nothing's changed (I'm R2a*-M124) but their automated tree hasn't taken into account all of my SNPs for some reason. Out of all the Y-DNA R mutations, only one is shown in another colour (R2a-L295-).

Not much of an update when I'm downgraded from "R-M207" to P*-M45 when the data indicating my lineage's marker properties are right there.

[Edit]: Just saw seferhabahir's comment. Looks like I'm not the only R2-M479 with a funky allocation.

You can see the absurdity in R2a project SNP page

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r2/default.aspx?section=ysnp

few of them even become J2a1a1b1c1c

Also i notice the P1 designated kits are all geno tested . Well the geno tree got confused by the geno transferred results itself .

rms2
04-26-2014, 01:11 AM
I see there is some wackiness going on with guys who are (or used to be) E1b1b, as well. Now some of them are listed as E1b1a, and there is a former E1b1a who is now listed as E1b1b. Weird.

GoldenHind
04-26-2014, 01:45 AM
It sounds like they will iron out the bugs in coming days, and FTDNA plans another update this year that will incorporate Big Y and "outside sources" (like Chromo2 and Full Genome testing?).

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-new-2014-y-dna-haplotree-has-arrived.html

The blog says the cut off date for SNPs to be included in the tree was November 2013, and they are limited to those SNPs which FTDNA has verified themselves, and do not include SNPs from other companies. DF99 was first publicly announced in August, 2013, and FTDNA has verified it's presence in a number of their customers. So if those were the criteria, it should be included, but it isn't.

FTDNA has been testing for L238 for at least four years and DF27 and Z196 for around two years, and they aren't included either.

So they need to do an update reflecting SNPs they have been testing for some time before worrying about those from outside sources.

rms2
04-26-2014, 01:51 AM
The blog says the cut off date for SNPs to be included in the tree was November 2013, and they are limited to those SNPs which FTDNA has verified themselves, and do not include SNPs from other companies. DF99 was first publicly announced in August, 2013, and FTDNA has verified it's presence in a number of their customers. So if those were the criteria, it should be included, but it isn't.

It should have been included, but FTDNA is planning an update for this year (but when?) that will include Big Y and "outside sources". I think they will update it sooner rather than later because no doubt they are getting a lot of complaints.

GoldenHind
04-26-2014, 01:52 AM
It should have been included, but FTDNA is planning an update for this year (but when?) that will include Big Y and "outside sources". I think they will update it sooner rather than later because no doubt they are getting a lot of complaints.

I wish I shared your optimism.

rms2
04-26-2014, 01:56 AM
I wish I shared your optimism.

More hope than optimism, I'm afraid. I can't imagine they would ignore the furor that I have seen developing since the new tree was released early today. That couldn't be good for business.

rod
04-26-2014, 02:26 AM
It should have been included, but FTDNA is planning an update for this year (but when?) that will include Big Y and "outside sources". I think they will update it sooner rather than later because no doubt they are getting a lot of complaints.
It would have been nice if they had looked at inside sources like their own haplogroup projects. Y project administrators must wonder why all the work they've done on projects the last three years has been totally ignored.

Kwheaton
04-26-2014, 02:44 AM
Just to clarify what I heard in the webinar earlier today those alphabet soup designations will be going away in the near future to be replaced by the new designated Haplogroup and terminal SNP. I would guess that some were sounding the alarm inside the company (like the Webinar presenter Elise perhaps--- who were already seeing the anomalies) but someone decided full steam ahead---sort of like a "Titanic" moment. They met the deadline as some have noted---but the cost may have been great in terms of their credibility. Its really sad to see that they built up such expectation to have it be a tree that is so behind the curve and so messed up....really sad. Their Big Y gamble played out reasonably well for them economically but this is not going to help anybody except perhaps orders for Full Y's and BAM analysis at FGC. Bad DNA Day for FTDNA.

Tįltos
04-26-2014, 04:28 AM
I could have put a thanks on every one these posts since the big clock struck 0!

This was rather anticlimax: 1779

Thank the heavens for the Krahn's YSEQ for Q1b. http://shop.yseq.net/index.php?cPath=1&sort=2a&filter_id=32 And yay! I received an email from them Friday afternoon that they received my brother's samples. Now keeping my fingers crossed that there is no problem with the samples.

Also, where is this one big SNP that FTDNA can offer my brother? I can't seem to find it in the ISOGG tree or YFull. I'm a little tired so I might be missing something. FTDNA is offering Q-F1680, is it called something else?

GTC
04-26-2014, 05:00 AM
It would have been nice if they had looked at inside sources like their own haplogroup projects. Y project administrators must wonder why all the work they've done on projects the last three years has been totally ignored.

Yes, indeed. That's certainly the case in the huge U106 arena where neither FTDNA nor the GP could ever hope to be on top of the situation, which changes daily as individual test results are compared to one another and the evolving tree.

While he was still working for FTDNA, Thomas Krahn would publicly thank group administrators for their assistance in this regard. I think he was the only person at FTDNA with the humility and understanding to be in a position to know of their value.

seferhabahir
04-26-2014, 06:47 AM
You can see the absurdity in R2a project SNP page

...

Also i notice the P1 designated kits are all geno tested . Well the geno tree got confused by the geno transferred results itself .

I believe the P1 designated Geno 2.0 kits all have an F813+ result which appears to now be R2a3 in the new FTDNA tree, so why they got listed as P1 instead of R2a3 is anybody's guess. I'm sure they will fix it in a few days or a few weeks.

Wing Genealogist
04-26-2014, 09:16 AM
The R1b-U106 Haplogroup Project has been working on updating their tree, in a manner similar to the U152 tree (where we are trying to include reference samples for every SNP). Our work is still in a rough draft format, and likely contains errors & omissions, but we have released it (as a Google Doc) in its "not ready for prime-time" state due to the fact the FTDNA tree unfortunately has missed many of our subclades.

This draft tree can be found online at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_9lu-SZDcLoM2g1TXFEZlRWaWM/edit

Please send any additions/corrections, etc. to me (wing_genealogist AT yahoo DOT com)

lgmayka
04-26-2014, 09:24 AM
It sounds like they will iron out the bugs in coming days, and FTDNA plans another update this year that will incorporate Big Y and "outside sources" (like Chromo2 and Full Genome testing?).
The most glaring omission is not the recent Big Y etc., but the SNPs found by FTDNA's own WTY years ago, and placed on the ISOGG tree 2 or 3 years ago. This "new" tree is missing not only L1025 and L1029 (2 years old), but L550 (3 years old). N-L550 is a common Geno 2.0 classification.

Keep in mind that we paid large amounts of $$ for the WTY; we then paid more large amounts of $$ for the individual tests to prove out the newfound SNPs.

rms2
04-26-2014, 01:05 PM
The most glaring omission is not the recent Big Y etc., but the SNPs found by FTDNA's own WTY years ago, and placed on the ISOGG tree 2 or 3 years ago. This "new" tree is missing not only L1025 and L1029 (2 years old), but L550 (3 years old). N-L550 is a common Geno 2.0 classification.

Keep in mind that we paid large amounts of $$ for the WTY; we then paid more large amounts of $$ for the individual tests to prove out the newfound SNPs.

Yeah, it's obviously a mess. I'm just holding out hope that they will fix it . . . sooner rather than later.

It's readily apparent that they should not have let Thomas Krahn go.

Heber
04-26-2014, 06:10 PM
This is what I get when I log onto Genographic.

"Did you know that this year, April 25th is both DNA Day and Arbor Day? In order to join in on the festivities and mark this calendric coincidence, National Geographic’s*Genographic Project*and Family Tree DNA are announcing the joint creation of the newest, largest, and most refined evolutionary tree of the paternally-inherited Y chromosome. In other words, the 2014 version of the Y-DNA tree is about ready to make an appearance. And the success of the DNA tree is due in great part to the Genographic Project’s GenoChip and the help from the more than 600,000 people that have joined this one-of-a-kind participant science project. From us at the Genographic Project we would like to say, Thank you!

What is the 2014 Y-Tree?*The new Y-Tree is a chart of human relatedness showing how all men’s Y-chromosomes stem from an ancient ancestor in Africa more than 100,000 years ago. Since that shared common ancestor, his descendents have journeyed around the world and in the process accumulated mutations in their DNA that make them and their Y-chromosome relatives unique. Each mutation is a genetic event that occurred at a particular time and place in the ancestral journey. Today, all men carry in their Y-chromosomes a set of DNA mutations that charts that series of events. The tree is therefore the global genetic map of all these mutational events, showing how we are all related.

How different is the 2014 Y-tree to the current version used by the Genographic Project?*With the new tree the number of branches nearly doubled, from 667 to more than 1200, and new connections have emerged. Haplogroup O, for example, has changed form showing new patterns of relatedness among East Asians and Southeast Asians. In general, the overall structure of the tree remained consistent with past versions, thus not affecting participants’ major haplogroup designations (G, J, R, and so on).

What does this mean for my current results?*Your current results will likely not change. However, if they do they would become more specific, thanks to the increase in our understanding of the branching patterns and the discovery of new branch tips on the tree.

When will Genographic implement the new tree?*The Genographic Project team is working closely with Family Tree DNA to implement the new data now. In the next few weeks this process will be complete and announced on the*Genographic Project website. Participants will then be able to log in to their results and see the changes."

GoldenHind
04-26-2014, 06:40 PM
Here is yet another example of the hazards of FTDNA's new tree. When I log onto my own personal haplotree page, I am still classified as R1b-P312. FTDNA recommends a total of 13 SNPs for me to order.

One is Z195, and a further 8 are positioned under Z195. Since Z195 is under DF27, which isn't included in the new tree, and I have tested DF27-, there is no chance I would test positive for any of these 9 SNPs.

The remaining four are positioned directly under P312. ISOGG lists one of these as under investigation and one as private. The other two do not appear anywhere in the ISOGG SNP index.

If I wasn't fairly well versed in R1b-P312 SNPs, I could waste a considerable amount of money following their recommendations. Sadly I'm afraid some may well fall into this trap. It is really unconscionable.

rms2
04-26-2014, 06:50 PM
. . . It is really unconscionable.

It would be unconscionable if they knew what they were doing. ;)

BMG
04-26-2014, 07:14 PM
They met the deadline as some have noted---but the cost may have been great in terms of their credibility. Its really sad to see that they built up such expectation to have it be a tree that is so behind the curve and so messed up....really sad. Their Big Y gamble played out reasonably well for them economically but this is not going to help anybody except perhaps orders for Full Y's and BAM analysis at FGC. Bad DNA Day for FTDNA.
That is the saddest part of it. First they try to show as achievement which actually is long overdue (it was funny to see that majority of R1a was still R-M417 according to them) . Secondly despite all the fuss created they couldnt come up with something commendable but added to the bad reputation of having poor IT .
Most of us wouldnt have minded the sham they created if they told somthing like ' we are upgrading to the new y tree ,if any issues will be sorted out soon ' .

BMG
04-26-2014, 07:30 PM
Another thing which i never understand is the need of a seperate tree . Why cant they use the isogg tree or atleast follow the same conventions while creating the tree .
In case of haplogroup L ISOGG Tree
L-M27 =L1a
L-M317 =L1b
L-M357 =L1c
while according to new FTDNA Tree
L-M27 =L1c
L-M357=L1b
The difference in the haplogroup designations made some customers wondered whether their haplogroup really changed .It confuses the less aware customer as outside of ftdna the same thing will have a different meaning .

S9 H9
04-26-2014, 08:17 PM
The difference in the haplogroup designations made some customers wondered whether their haplogroup really changed .It confuses the less aware customer as outside of ftdna the same thing will have a different meaning .

Which, we presume, is why FTDNA is going to move away from the hierarchical nomenclature and just use SNPs as "names". Eventually new customers will not be concerned about being "L1c" or "L1b", but just whether they are L-M27 or L-M357.

Nomenclature with just a single mutation as identifier will lose the ability to communicate the hierarchy on the subclade, but I guess we are all supposed to log onto the site and play with the tree interactively.

GailT
04-26-2014, 09:09 PM
Nomenclature with just a single mutation as identifier will lose the ability to communicate the hierarchy on the subclade, but I guess we are all supposed to log onto the site and play with the tree interactively.

I thought the alphabet soup subclade names stopped being useful a long time ago especially for R1b, so I'm glad they are dropping it. In cases where people still want to show information on the hierarchy, multiple SNPs can be listed, e.g., R1b-U152/L2 provides much more info than simply R-L2.

LUKE33
04-26-2014, 09:32 PM
Looks like they have made some error in the J2 branch.

The downstream SNP of PF7394 is PF7395 -- they have PF7392 instead.

I have just e-mailed the company.

JaG
04-27-2014, 06:49 AM
Looks like they have made some error in the J2 branch.

The downstream SNP of PF7394 is PF7395 -- they have PF7392 instead.

There are at least 2 dozen errors/misplacements in the J2 branch alone.

LUKE33
04-27-2014, 07:14 AM
There are at least 2 dozen errors/misplacements in the J2 branch alone.

Yes, I know - that specific SNP interests me.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?900-New-J2-subclade-J-PF7395

It was the initial reason I came to this forum in 2013 .

There are errors in other haplogroups also.

Generally speaking , no serious researcher takes much notice of their tree - it is so out of date.

Heber
04-27-2014, 07:49 AM
One of the most efficient ways of correcting the extensive errors in this Phylogenetic Tree is to leverage the previous work of citizen scientists, project administrators and vendors and their draft trees to identify the correct branching and SNPs.

It is a relatively easy exercise using available data analytic tools to merge the available trees in an SNP compendium as Dave Reynolds did previously.

This compendium could then be used to weed out the obvious errors.

The ISOGG tree is the obvious benchmark as it is heavily influenced by the citizen science and project administrator community.

Chris Morleys experimental tree is fast moving and influenced by Genographic and FTDNA Datasets.

Alex Williamson's Big Tree is the best I have seen for the L21 community and incorporates the latest Big Y and FGC results.

The Y Full Tree is on the leading edge of SNP discovery and is influenced by FGC and Big Y.

The Jim Wilson Tree and anonymised Datasets although proprietary probably have the best coverage for the Isles.

The Fudan University Tree although computer generated and error prone has consistent naming conventions and gives better coverage for Asia.

The YHDR Tree although primitive compared to other trees is suitable for the academic and forensic science community and is peer reviewed.

The Genographic tree was almost up to date two years ago but was always hindered by lack of transparency and openness.

Thomas Krahn YSEQ Datasets and service provides good checks and balances to verify NGS discovered SNPs

Each tree has its strengths and weaknesses, but collectively they can help sort out the current problems.

GTC
04-27-2014, 07:58 AM
Each tree has its strengths and weaknesses, but collectively they can help sort out the current problems.

IMO the companies would all do better relinquishing the tree management role to a specialist/standards organization and concentrate on providing faster, cheaper and better tests.

vettor
04-27-2014, 08:49 AM
The new Ftdna tree has me correctly at T-L446, but natgeno2 has me at T-CTS11984 which is one step further into L446.
my question is , will ftdna accept what NG2.0 state for me IF i transfer across my data or not? ............will they want me to test this SNP at Ftnda

GTC
04-27-2014, 09:10 AM
The new Ftdna tree has me correctly at T-L446, but natgeno2 has me at T-CTS11984 which is one step further into L446.
my question is , will ftdna accept what NG2.0 state for me IF i transfer across my data or not? ............will they want me to test this SNP at Ftnda

If you transfer your Geno 2 results to FTDNA, then they will appear in your SNP record and show as such in any FTDNA surname and/or geographic projects that you join.

However, from what I've read elsewhere, in your FTDNA haplotree view your Geno 2 positives may show as "presumed positive" and what they will show as your "terminal" SNP is debatable ... and may well change as they fix up the errors and problems with the Y tree.

jdean
04-27-2014, 10:26 AM
I posted this on another thread but it's probably more relevant here : )

One good thing that's come of this is it motivated me to get off my bum and update the DF49 project.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF49

It's not much but at least it gives people an idea of the emerging structure under DF49, unlike FTDNA's haplotree !!

Ahaddad
04-29-2014, 07:56 PM
My God i don't understand any more!!! The Geno 2.0 classify R-PF6215, when i transfer to FTDNA in January i was classified a R-M173, when they updtade the new haplotree i pass to P-M45 and now i'm R-M207. I'm very confuse and don't understand any more. Help!!!

rockman
04-30-2014, 02:16 AM
Same for me. They changed me to P-m45 and now R-m207

GTC
04-30-2014, 03:02 AM
FTDNA, in conjunction with the Genographic Project, seems to have made a real hash of parts of the Y tree. The only way those problems will be corrected is if haplogroup specialists point out the errors to them. This, of course, will take some time.

GoldenHind
04-30-2014, 06:00 PM
Here are a couple of more examples of the confusion and unnecessary SNP orders this new tree is likely to cause.

Someone in the R1b-P312 Project who has tested DF27+ and Z196+ is now being told he can now order an additional 19 SNPs. Of the 19, the only one he is likely to be positive for is Z195. This absurdity is due to the omission of both DF27 and Z196 from the tree.

Another person in the P312 Project who has tested DF99+ and is thus P312>DF99 is now classified U106>Z381>L48>Z28>Z27>R-Z24, even though he tested negative for U106 with Geno 2! This is of course due to the omission of DF99 from the tree.

This idiocy is going to cause massive confusion and a disruption of progress in SNP testing, at least for those subclades that were excluded from the new tree, and a large amount of money wasted testing for SNPs there is no possibility of getting a positive result for.

FTDNA has now changed the status of the P312>DF99 person I mentioned from U106 to P312, so it appears they are trying to correct some of their erroneous haplogroup assignments. Incidentally I am informed that FTDNA classified me, at least for a time, as L21, though I never saw it.

vettor
05-01-2014, 06:12 AM
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/newftdnatree_zps755fc23b.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/newftdnatree_zps755fc23b.jpg.html)


mine is working fine....matches all tests that I have done....am I missing something?

Goldschlager
05-01-2014, 12:14 PM
Initially I was R-M269, after GENO 2.0 and + for L584 changed to R-L150. Once the new tree I became YSC0000072 and after few days now I am R-V221.
Is this in any way an improvement?

GoldenHind
05-01-2014, 07:15 PM
I have now discovered another person in the R1b-P312 project who is completely misclassified as a result of the new tree. As a result of his Big Y test, he has been classified as U152>Z47, even though he tested U152 negative in the Big Y. He has tested negative for all the known subclades of P312, except DF27, which isn't included in the Big Y results. My guess is that he will fall into the DF27+ Z196- group.

R.Rocca
05-01-2014, 07:20 PM
I have now discovered another person in the R1b-P312 project who is completely misclassified as a result of the new tree. As a result of his Big Y test, he has been classified as U152>Z47, even though he tested U152 negative in the Big Y. He has tested negative for all the known subclades of P312, except DF27, which isn't included in the Big Y results. My guess is that he will fall into the DF27+ Z196- group.

Thanks, I've alerted the other U152 project admins as well.

Heber
05-01-2014, 08:09 PM
Listing Criteria for SNP Inclusion
into the ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree - 2014

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_SNP_Requirements.html

rockman
05-03-2014, 02:56 AM
This is my tree now, does this confirm me as R-M207?

1807

Can someone tell me more about this?

Heber
05-03-2014, 10:31 AM
One of the most efficient ways of correcting the extensive errors in this Phylogenetic Tree is to leverage the previous work of citizen scientists, project administrators and vendors and their draft trees to identify the correct branching and SNPs.

It is a relatively easy exercise using available data analytic tools to merge the available trees in an SNP compendium as Dave Reynolds did previously.

This compendium could then be used to weed out the obvious errors.

The ISOGG tree is the obvious benchmark as it is heavily influenced by the citizen science and project administrator community.

Chris Morleys experimental tree is fast moving and influenced by Genographic and FTDNA Datasets.

Alex Williamson's Big Tree is the best I have seen for the L21 community and incorporates the latest Big Y and FGC results.

The Y Full Tree is on the leading edge of SNP discovery and is influenced by FGC and Big Y.

The Jim Wilson Tree and anonymised Datasets although proprietary probably have the best coverage for the Isles.

The Fudan University Tree although computer generated and error prone has consistent naming conventions and gives better coverage for Asia.

The YHDR Tree although primitive compared to other trees is suitable for the academic and forensic science community and is peer reviewed.

The Genographic tree was almost up to date two years ago but was always hindered by lack of transparency and openness.

Thomas Krahn YSEQ Datasets and service provides good checks and balances to verify NGS discovered SNPs

Each tree has its strengths and weaknesses, but collectively they can help sort out the current problems.


Here are some links to these trees.

SNP Conpendium.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kp0tdk3tno480ci/ISOGG%20SNP%20Compendium.xlsx

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.

ISOGG 2014 Tree.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html

Chris Morleys Tree.

http://ytree.morleydna.com/ExperimentalGenoPhylogeny20140207.pdf

Alex Williamson's Big Tree.

http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

YFull Tree

http://www.yfull.com/tree/

Dr. Jim Wilson Tree.

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2014/03/dr-jim-wilson-and-scotlandsdna-release.html

The Fudan University Tree.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.6590.pdf

My own particular area of interest in L21 and it's defining mutations.

http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-df21/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-df49/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-c4466/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-l513/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-z253/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-z255/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-l1335/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-l21-df13-df41/

http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-m269/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-p312/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u152/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-df27/
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/r1b-u106/

lgmayka
05-03-2014, 10:52 AM
This is my tree now, does this confirm me as R-M207?
The top levels of FTDNA's R haplotree are seriously goofed up. You would do better to compare your SNP results against the ISOGG haplotree.

rms2
05-03-2014, 12:21 PM
Over in the R L21 and Subclades Project, the default error this morning is "R-L513". A number of men who are NOT L513+ are showing up with that designator this morning, and it is a pain in the butt. Thank God I caught it before I moved them all over to the L513 category! Now I am double checking all the new stuff to make sure the person actually has a positive test result that corresponds to what his y haplogroup designator is showing. Even if he does, however, now I am not completely sure that isn't an error, too.

Dr_McNinja
05-03-2014, 12:27 PM
They did something weird and relabeled my uncle from R-L657 to R-Z94 but L657 is still green/positive:

http://i.imgur.com/Wd23z58.png

Just a freak error?

GTC
05-03-2014, 01:06 PM
They did something weird and relabeled my uncle from R-L657 to R-Z94 but L657 is still green/positive:

http://i.imgur.com/Wd23z58.png

Just a freak error?


Perhaps they "fixed" it by hand and forgot to extinguish green below his new "terminal". I would email them about it.

Dr_McNinja
05-03-2014, 02:49 PM
Perhaps they "fixed" it by hand and forgot to extinguish green below his new "terminal". I would email them about it.They shouldn't have even tried because he is L657+. Unless they decided he doesn't have L657 but the haplotree still says at the bottom L657+. Shouldn't they e-mail or something if they make an error though?

GTC
05-03-2014, 04:05 PM
They shouldn't have even tried because he is L657+. Unless they decided he doesn't have L657 but the haplotree still says at the bottom L657+. Shouldn't they e-mail or something if they make an error though?

So, if the tree is correct hierarchically seems they have highlighted the incorrect "terminal". It's hard enough to get FTDNA to send any sort of individual email, let alone one saying they made an error. I would email them pointing out the error, however, given the mess they have created for themselves it may take a while for them to act on it.

Over on FTDNA Forums, Elise Friedman, as unofficial liaison person, has been forwarding reported issues to the IT department.

AJL
05-03-2014, 04:23 PM
They did something weird and relabeled my uncle from R-L657 to R-Z94 but L657 is still green/positive:

http://i.imgur.com/Wd23z58.png

Just a freak error?

One of many freak errors -- when there are this many freak errors, there is more error than system.

thetick
05-03-2014, 06:35 PM
One of many freak errors -- when there are this many freak errors, there is more error than system.

I think all the problems are because the new FTDNA YDNA tree ONLY has Geno2.0 SNPs. So anyone who tested a WTH or BigY many have a terminal SNP that doesn't exist with the new FTDNA YDNA tree. FTDNA has stated WTH and BigY SNPs not already in Geno2.0 will be added at a later date.

vettor
05-03-2014, 06:44 PM
Perhaps they "fixed" it by hand and forgot to extinguish green below his new "terminal". I would email them about it.

As per my post#118, they now call me T-L446 while still acknowledging I am positive for lower subclades . They also told me they wrote to NG2 and asked them why my negatives never came across with the transfer.
They said they will mark my negatives from NG2 when they get them.

The issue seems to me is that they are trying to fit in with a classification of subclade terminology from some other site...maybe Isogg ( or another)
I can imagine that they are getting information from project managers on what they want to group together in their projects.

BTW, they have done mine manually as the transfer was "incomplete"

to conclude for me......better now than what I had a month ago

Mehrdad
05-03-2014, 06:48 PM
As per my post#118, they now call me T-L446 while still acknowledging I am positive for lower subclades . They also told me they wrote to NG2 and asked them why my negatives never came across with the transfer.
They said they will mark my negatives from NG2 when they get them.

The issue seems to me is that they are trying to fit in with a classification of subclade terminology from some other site...maybe Isogg ( or another)

BTW, they have done mine manually as the transfer was "incomplete"

to conclude for me......better now than what I had a month ago

Likewise, they have me as R-L657, however I am R-Y7

parasar
05-05-2014, 03:26 PM
I think all the problems are because the new FTDNA YDNA tree ONLY has Geno2.0 SNPs. So anyone who tested a WTH or BigY many have a terminal SNP that doesn't exist with the new FTDNA YDNA tree. FTDNA has stated WTH and BigY SNPs not already in Geno2.0 will be added at a later date.

In his case though L657 is in Geno2.0, and indeed he was initially marked L657 (I distinctly remember seeing that) on the new tree before the change to Z94.

GoldenHind
05-08-2014, 06:42 PM
On logging onto my FTDNA personal pages, I discover i an now classified as "confirmed" R1b-L513, which is positioned under L21. Apparently this is the second time this has occurred. I never saw it the first time, but was told that this happened previously.

What makes this very odd indeed is that 1) I have tested L21-, and 2) as far as I can tell, I have never tested for L513. I thought I should double check my Geno 2 SNP results for L513, but they seem to have disappeared, not only on my FTDNA haplotree page, but on the P312 project SNP pages as well. Fortunately I printed them out and have them around here somewhere.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

This should serve as a warning to individuals and project administrators not to accept FTDNA haplogroup subclade designations without double checking the actual SNP test results. I am not the only example I have encountered whose classification under FTDNA's new tree is completely erroneous.

EDIT: I have succeeded in finding my printout of my Geno 2 SNP test results, and they do not include a positive result for L513.

jdean
05-08-2014, 07:27 PM
On logging onto my FTDNA personal pages, I discover i an now classified as "confirmed" R1b-L513, which is positioned under L21. Apparently this is the second time this has occurred. I never saw it the first time, but was told that this happened previously.

What makes this very odd indeed is that 1) I have tested L21-, and 2) as far as I can tell, I have never tested for L513. I thought I should double check my Geno 2 SNP results for L513, but they seem to have disappeared, not only on my FTDNA haplotree page, but on the P312 project SNP pages as well. Fortunately I printed them out and have them around here somewhere.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

This should serve as a warning to individuals and project administrators not to accept FTDNA haplogroup subclade designations without double checking the actual SNP test results. I am not the only example I have encountered whose classification under FTDNA's new tree is completely erroneous.

EDIT: I have succeeded in finding my printout of my Geno 2 SNP test results, and they do not include a positive result for L513.

Congratulations : )

vettor
05-08-2014, 07:31 PM
On logging onto my FTDNA personal pages, I discover i an now classified as "confirmed" R1b-L513, which is positioned under L21. Apparently this is the second time this has occurred. I never saw it the first time, but was told that this happened previously.

What makes this very odd indeed is that 1) I have tested L21-, and 2) as far as I can tell, I have never tested for L513. I thought I should double check my Geno 2 SNP results for L513, but they seem to have disappeared, not only on my FTDNA haplotree page, but on the P312 project SNP pages as well. Fortunately I printed them out and have them around here somewhere.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

This should serve as a warning to individuals and project administrators not to accept FTDNA haplogroup subclade designations without double checking the actual SNP test results. I am not the only example I have encountered whose classification under FTDNA's new tree is completely erroneous.

EDIT: I have succeeded in finding my printout of my Geno 2 SNP test results, and they do not include a positive result for L513.

Is the fault from NG2 in that they do not supply you with your negative SNPs?

Tįltos
05-09-2014, 03:43 AM
On logging onto my FTDNA personal pages, I discover i an now classified as "confirmed" R1b-L513, which is positioned under L21. Apparently this is the second time this has occurred. I never saw it the first time, but was told that this happened previously.

What makes this very odd indeed is that 1) I have tested L21-, and 2) as far as I can tell, I have never tested for L513. I thought I should double check my Geno 2 SNP results for L513, but they seem to have disappeared, not only on my FTDNA haplotree page, but on the P312 project SNP pages as well. Fortunately I printed them out and have them around here somewhere.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

This should serve as a warning to individuals and project administrators not to accept FTDNA haplogroup subclade designations without double checking the actual SNP test results. I am not the only example I have encountered whose classification under FTDNA's new tree is completely erroneous.

EDIT: I have succeeded in finding my printout of my Geno 2 SNP test results, and they do not include a positive result for L513.
I just looked at my brother's matches, and some of them are now listed as Q-M378. I know they did not take an SNP test. Then others are just listed as Q-M242, that didn't SNP test either. This Q-M242 would be the usual designation for the predicted, not the Q-M378. I also double checked in the Haplogroup Q project and can see some of them are listed as Q-M378 in red, not green.

Their system seems to have gone haywire.

lgmayka
05-09-2014, 04:45 AM
Their system seems to have gone haywire.
Some of the predictions approach lunacy. Kit 155749, who is almost certainly R1a-CTS3402 (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/nearest/6891/), is now predicted as J-M172.

Mehrdad
05-09-2014, 04:46 AM
I just looked at my brother's matches, and some of them are now listed as Q-M378. I know they did not take an SNP test. Then others are just listed as Q-M242, that didn't SNP test either. This Q-M242 would be the usual designation for the predicted, not the Q-M378. I also double checked in the Haplogroup Q project and can see some of them are listed as Q-M378 in red, not green.

Their system seems to have gone haywire.

When you said haywire, it reminds me of a VBA code I was trying to debug today, the developer couldn't solve the issue she was having, so she wrote a note next to her code....."this is so &#$% up", it was pretty funny. I wonder what the FTDNA coders are thinking about all these errors right now. :)

thetick
05-09-2014, 05:29 AM
Some of the predictions approach lunacy. Kit 155749, who is almost certainly R1a-CTS3402 (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/nearest/6891/), is now predicted as J-M172.

Wow .. I guess there are some serious issues that have nothing to due with missing BigY/WTY SNPs.

thetick
05-09-2014, 05:31 AM
When you said haywire, it reminds me of a VBA code I was trying to debug today, the developer couldn't solve the issue she was having, so she wrote a note next to her code....."this is so &#$% up", it was pretty funny.....

Using VBA code for anything is so &#$% up...

GTC
05-09-2014, 05:39 AM
Their system seems to have gone haywire.

Haywire is putting it mildly.

On FTDNA Forums, Dr Doug McDonald, an old hand at this stuff, has described the new Y Haplotree as having "gone insane, mad, nuts, bonkers and a dozen other things."

GoldenHind
05-09-2014, 06:09 PM
Haywire is putting it mildly.

On FTDNA Forums, Dr Doug McDonald, an old hand at this stuff, has described the new Y Haplotree as having "gone insane, mad, nuts, bonkers and a dozen other things."

It has indeed gone beyond haywire. I just checked the Ydna results on the R1b-P312 and Subclades Project public website, and found three people who have tested P312>L238 are classified Z47, as are three others who have tested P312>DF19 and two who are P312**. All of these are shown in green, which means confirmed rather than predicted. There are a scattering of others in other classifications as well.

GTC
05-10-2014, 03:17 AM
Yes, there have been cases where close family members are now reporting in entirely different haplogroups.

However, hope is on the horizon. The following was posted elsewhere by a project admin following her notifying FTDNA of numerous tree errors:


"We really appreciate all the feedback we've received from the community about the new Y-DNA haplotree! We've been busy fixing the issues you've uncovered and we're releasing some big changes today that we expect to lower the incidence of incorrect haplogroup placements to just 0.4%! In addition, we will now show a "Pending" status for the small percentage of users that would get an incorrect haplotree placement. This will be a temporary measure as we continue working on the tree.

Please note that we will continue to work and use your valuable feedback to update the Ytree. Your comments have been noted by the Ytree team."

rockman
05-10-2014, 04:05 AM
They fixed mine, I'm now R-P25 again.

Tįltos
05-10-2014, 05:23 AM
Yes, there have been cases where close family members are now reporting in entirely different haplogroups.

However, hope is on the horizon. The following was posted elsewhere by a project admin following her notifying FTDNA of numerous tree errors:
I received the exact email from them on Friday. It was their response to the ticket that I put in to the help desk about my FF matches losing their predicted Y haplogroups.

marosjor
05-10-2014, 01:21 PM
I am puzzled. I have one member of the Ireland yDNA Project who is P312+ AND CTS4528+. Is this possible? I thought they were parallel SNPs. #N4846 is the kit no. He is also in the R-P312 y-haplogroup Project.

Regards,
Margaret Jordan

GoldenHind
05-10-2014, 06:25 PM
On logging onto my FTDNA personal pages, I discover i an now classified as "confirmed" R1b-L513, which is positioned under L21. Apparently this is the second time this has occurred. I never saw it the first time, but was told that this happened previously.

What makes this very odd indeed is that 1) I have tested L21-, and 2) as far as I can tell, I have never tested for L513. I thought I should double check my Geno 2 SNP results for L513, but they seem to have disappeared, not only on my FTDNA haplotree page, but on the P312 project SNP pages as well. Fortunately I printed them out and have them around here somewhere.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

This should serve as a warning to individuals and project administrators not to accept FTDNA haplogroup subclade designations without double checking the actual SNP test results. I am not the only example I have encountered whose classification under FTDNA's new tree is completely erroneous.

EDIT: I have succeeded in finding my printout of my Geno 2 SNP test results, and they do not include a positive result for L513.

My time of being classified L21>L513 was indeed brief, as I have once again been returned to the P312 category. It does appear that FTDNA is trying to correct their misclassifications.

GoldenHind
05-11-2014, 05:58 PM
I am puzzled. I have one member of the Ireland yDNA Project who is P312+ AND CTS4528+. Is this possible? I thought they were parallel SNPs. #N4846 is the kit no. He is also in the R-P312 y-haplogroup Project.

Regards,
Margaret Jordan

I believe the answer to your question is that FTDNA's placement on the tree of CTS4528 as parallel to P312 and U106 is inaccurate. ISOGG lists it as an SNP whose position on the R tree is under investigation.

AJL
05-16-2014, 03:46 PM
The worst two effects of the haplotree seem to be:

1. People are leaving haplogroup projects they are legitimately members of because an automated tree is giving them the wrong designations (e.g. R1a L176.1 are now told they are R1b-L176.2); and

2. (which is probably worse) people are ordering all sorts of useless SNPs because the same brainless chart is telling them to do so.

Joe B
05-16-2014, 04:02 PM
The worst two effects of the haplotree seem to be:

1. People are leaving haplogroup projects they are legitimately members of because an automated tree is giving them the wrong designations (e.g. R1a L176.1 are now told they are R1b-L176.2); and

2. (which is probably worse) people are ordering all sorts of useless SNPs because the same brainless chart is telling them to do so.
A serious question. Does FTDNA have anybody working on fixing their haplotree or did they get fired? Hats off to Chris Morley and his Experimental Y-SNP Phylogenies which got it right. It's even useful for seeing where FTDNA screwed up.
http://ytree.morleydna.com/experimental-phylogeny

vettor
05-19-2014, 06:04 AM
In the ftdna forums there is talk about ancestral and derived SNPs.

Basically it states that the Tree is set as
Tested positive = Derived SNP
Tested Negative = Negative SNP
Presumed Positive = Ancestral SNP

Presumed Positive ( which means Ancestral) means that NG2 did not forward Ftdna this positive SNP because its ancestral and they only forward to FTDNA the derived SNP's................I see no logic here!

for me, I have many Basal presumed positive SNP ( which where confirmed positive in 23andme) in FTDNA new tree.

Does this make sense?

vettor
05-21-2014, 07:05 AM
In the ftdna forums there is talk about ancestral and derived SNPs.

Basically it states that the Tree is set as
Tested positive = Derived SNP
Tested Negative = Negative SNP
Presumed Positive = Ancestral SNP

Presumed Positive ( which means Ancestral) means that NG2 did not forward Ftdna this positive SNP because its ancestral and they only forward to FTDNA the derived SNP's................I see no logic here!

for me, I have many Basal presumed positive SNP ( which where confirmed positive in 23andme) in FTDNA new tree.

Does this make sense?

continuing as per above, its very strange that all the "proposed positive" SNP for me in ftdna are all confirmed positive in 23andme test.
Clearly this could mean that the "proposed positive" (IF you have done a NG2 test and transferred it to Ftdna), would indicate ancestral SNPs

GTC
05-21-2014, 07:11 AM
continuing as per above, its very strange that all the "proposed positive" SNP for me in ftdna are all confirmed positive in 23andme test.
Clearly this could mean that the "proposed positive" (IF you have done a NG2 test and transferred it to Ftdna), would indicate ancestral SNPs

Suggest you advise FTDNA of your situation and ask them to explain your results. In the process of doing that, they may discover (yet more) errors.

I gather that they were inundated with emails after the Y tree release, but I hear that they are getting around to replying to them.

vettor
05-21-2014, 07:07 PM
Suggest you advise FTDNA of your situation and ask them to explain your results. In the process of doing that, they may discover (yet more) errors.

I gather that they were inundated with emails after the Y tree release, but I hear that they are getting around to replying to them.

agree

but I was looking for a logical conclusion and that to me is

1- NatGen2 does not provide Ftdna with either Negative or ancestral SNP

2- The "presumed positive" part of the Ftdna tree, IF you transferred results from Natgeno2, are clearly all positive ancestral SNP's............which is why you cannot test these in Ftdna

3 - all positive SNP in the ftdna tree IF you transferred results from Natgeno2 are ALL derived positive SNPs

ballardgen
06-02-2014, 06:52 PM
Margaret,

Have you had a response from FTDNA regards this problem?

I would be very interested in the out come can you keep me posted OR ask N4846 to join my private study.

Best Wishes
Adrian Ballard

https://www.facebook.com/groups/r1b1a1a1a1c/
https://sites.google.com/site/cts4528/

GoldenHind
06-04-2014, 01:24 AM
On checking the latest results for the R1b-P312 project, I discovered two more examples of the mess caused by FTDNA's new haplotree.

The first had tested DF27+ Z196- last year. Thereafter he ordered the Big Y. His haplotree page showed he was negative for everything below P312 except L238 and DF99, and recommended he test for them. However his Big Y results showed he was negative for both those SNPs. Accordingly, he ordered both, only to receive negative results for both. Thus he completely wasted his money testing for SNPs recommended by FTDNA that he already had negative results for.

The second was a similar situation, having tested DF27+ and Z196-. Again, he ordered the Big Y, and received recommendations that he test for L238 and DF99, despite the fact his Big Y results established he was negative for both. Accordingly, he ordered L238, but at least this time someone caught it and cancelled the order.

It appears to me that the Big Y is liable to cause a lot of problems for those who are DF27+ and Z196-, since neither is included in that test, and the recommended SNPs for further testing are completely inaccurate. I don't think this problem is liable to be solved until FTDNA includes DF27 and Z196 in their new tee..

Pillar_of_fire
06-04-2014, 06:05 AM
Dear Group Admins,

Thank you again for your continued dedication to your groups!

As you know, we released the new Y-DNA haplotree on April 25, 2014. At first, some users were temporarily placed in the wrong haplogroup and there were some inaccuracies in the tree's structure. I'm happy to report that we've made tremendous progress since then thanks in part to feedback from group admininstrators. We will continue to improve & refine the haplotree as new data becomes available.

That’s where you come in. You are the ones who have been studying and working with that data regularly, so we’re asking you to send us your explanations of where you believe the updated tree does not accurately reflect your haplogroup or subclade. However, because the 2014 Y Tree was released in partnership with National Geographic’s Genographic Project, we have to stay within that framework for updates to this iteration of the tree. To ensure accuracy, we are not using data from 3rd party provides (e.g. FGC or Chromo2).

Next Steps: Please send [email protected] your diagrams or descriptions so we can review them alongside the Geno 2.0 data we’ve accumulated. Please make sure that you observe the following specific parameters:
• Include kit numbers that include SNP tests done in the Genomic Research Center on SNPs from the 2010 YCC Y tree, or that tested with The Genographic Project’s Geno 2.0
• GenoChip examples must have tested directly with the Genographic Project so we can review the raw data.
• Email only [email protected]
• Submit before June 25, 2014

If you have submitted a Help Desk issue on this subject, please DO NOT resubmit your information UNLESS your submission didn’t follow the above guidelines - and then please be sure to let us know you already emailed about it so that we can pull it from the Help Desk and not duplicate efforts.
We will set up a system to accept and use data from Big Y and other tests for the next version of the tree, so please don’t send examples from those tests.

Only the team working on the Y Tree update will review the emails, so any emails sent to other addresses will be forwarded directly to the [email protected] address without reply. Thank you for your help in making the Y Tree as accurate as possible.

GTC
06-04-2014, 06:53 AM
Better late than never I guess, but they would have saved themselves and their customers a ton of bother had they made the Y tree available to Group Admins as a draft long before publishing it.

vettor
06-04-2014, 09:46 AM
Better late than never I guess, but they would have saved themselves and their customers a ton of bother had they made the Y tree available to Group Admins as a draft long before publishing it.

mine is still not fixed, it has J and L haplotype SNP's in it

and all the T 's that tested these are 100% negative

GTC
06-04-2014, 11:27 AM
mine is still not fixed, it has J and L haplotype SNP's in it

and all the T 's that tested these are 100% negative

Is there a haplogroup T Project?

If so, then the Admin should have received that FTDNA email and can respond accordingly.

Stephen Parrish
06-04-2014, 02:56 PM
Is there a haplogroup T Project?

If so, then the Admin should have received that FTDNA email and can respond accordingly.

GTC -

Gareth Henson is the administrator of FTDNA's haplogroup T project; he is also ISOGG's contact person for haplogroup T.

Stephen

GTC
06-05-2014, 01:55 AM
GTC -

Gareth Henson is the administrator of FTDNA's haplogroup T project; he is also ISOGG's contact person for haplogroup T.

Stephen

Thanks. In that case one would expect that he's across this process. Would suggest that Vettor correspond with Mr Henson.

vettor
06-05-2014, 06:00 AM
Thanks. In that case one would expect that he's across this process. Would suggest that Vettor correspond with Mr Parrish.

I presume you mean Henson.............I have emailed twice.

Maybe I must rely on MorleyDna as it seems to be better as of now

GTC
06-05-2014, 06:14 AM
I presume you mean Henson.............I have emailed twice.

Yes, my error. No reply from a project Admin is not a good sign. Perhaps he has abandoned his role?


Maybe I must rely on MorleyDna as it seems to be better as of now

If Mr Henson is not corresponding with you then there's a good chance that he's also not corresponding with FTDNA, so l suggest that you report the problems to their help desk. Although the help desk has been flooded with such emails recently, there's evidence that they are working their way through them.

Stephen Parrish
06-05-2014, 08:07 PM
Yes, my error. No reply from a project Admin is not a good sign. Perhaps he has abandoned his role?

If Mr Henson is not corresponding with you then there's a good chance that he's also not corresponding with FTDNA, so l suggest that you report the problems to their help desk. Although the help desk has been flooded with such emails recently, there's evidence that they are working their way through them.

GTC and vettor -

Gareth is also administrator of the SRY2627+/L176.2+/Z198+ project. In fairness to him and given, as GTC mentioned, that FTDNA has been swamped of late, it is possible that he has received no correspondence from FTDNA about the matters that vettor mentioned.

Stephen

vettor
06-06-2014, 07:53 PM
GTC and vettor -

Gareth is also administrator of the SRY2627+/L176.2+/Z198+ project. In fairness to him and given, as GTC mentioned, that FTDNA has been swamped of late, it is possible that he has received no correspondence from FTDNA about the matters that vettor mentioned.

Stephen

Got an email from Peter ( assistant in T group ) and said to write to Gareth ....? ..........I did twice. Maybe he is too busy with the new S group findings

GTC
06-10-2014, 09:46 AM
mine is still not fixed, it has J and L haplotype SNP's in it

and all the T 's that tested these are 100% negative

Has that particular problem been reported to FTDNA?

If so, then I guess they are still working their way through the barrage of emails they received as a result of this mess.

vettor
06-10-2014, 06:34 PM
Has that particular problem been reported to FTDNA?

If so, then I guess they are still working their way through the barrage of emails they received as a result of this mess.

thanks

I have not reported it to ftdna directly, but via the T project team. I do not know where to report it directly. I assume their customer service has little knowledge of the genetic side and is more involved in the ordering side.

I have only reported missing recredit of my funds since April.............all I get is this
I have requested the refund for you. You will receive a credit to your credit card account within the next three to four business days.

how many days is "the next three to four business days"? ...............bold was sent a fortnight ago.

Note: a coupon has never worked for me

GTC
06-11-2014, 01:03 AM
thanks

I have not reported it to ftdna directly, but via the T project team. I do not know where to report it directly. I assume their customer service has little knowledge of the genetic side and is more involved in the ordering side.

The FTDNA help desk accepts customer correspondence and routes that the the appropriate department. There is evidence elsewhere that haplotree problems reported via the help desk are being processed eventually. If you are still concerned that nothing appears to be happening in your particular case then you can always lodge your own problem report.


I have only reported missing recredit of my funds since April.............all I get is this
I have requested the refund for you. You will receive a credit to your credit card account within the next three to four business days.

how many days is "the next three to four business days"? ...............bold was sent a fortnight ago.

Suggest it's time to make a phone call to them about that matter.


Note: a coupon has never worked for me

Did you get prompted to enter a coupon? Did it reject the coupon you entered? You could discuss that with them in the same phone call.

vettor
06-11-2014, 06:13 AM
The FTDNA help desk accepts customer correspondence and routes that the the appropriate department. There is evidence elsewhere that haplotree problems reported via the help desk are being processed eventually. If you are still concerned that nothing appears to be happening in your particular case then you can always lodge your own problem report.


ok



Did you get prompted to enter a coupon? Did it reject the coupon you entered? You could discuss that with them in the same phone call.

yes
yes
email is my method ( time zone is an issue for me), besides , I have a paper trail via email

must be some issue with my PC, as I also had problems with transfers............ ftdna had to load my transfer from Natgeno2 into ftdna manually ( it did not work any other way). But they said they could not load all of it as the negative SNP's stayed behind.
I since have checked by PC thoroughly with no issue, ..............maybe its Firefox ......


below from Elise , very helpful ........
Your Geno2.0 data has both positive and negative SNP results. However, the negatives didn't transfer over to your Haplotree page with the positives, so I reported that issue.

Elise

can you check since your part of ftdna?

Stellaritic
07-05-2014, 02:01 AM
My Y chromosome badge suddenly disappeared from my homepage,I think they're updating their Y-tree !
Now I am both Em35.1+ and E-P46+ which is very strange ! :laugh:
http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad82/saharalag/EP46_zps21872077.jpg
http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad82/saharalag/em35_zps5cd4279e.jpg

Dubhthach
07-24-2014, 09:41 AM
We have a new CTS4528+ (171593 - Shannon) in the Ireland project. What's the exact relationship between CTS4528 and DF100?

-Paul
(DF41+)

GoldenHind
10-05-2014, 10:24 PM
FTDNA seems to have once again fallen into a practice of erroneous classification. They have just re-classified me from R1b-P312 (which is correct as far as they are aware, as my DF99+ result came from FullGenomes) to R-P37. They list P37 as a subclade of U152, and they seem not to be bothered in the slightest by the fact that I have tested U152- with them. As I mentioned earlier, they previously erroneously twice classified me as L21+, even though I have tested L21-.

zulkif
10-06-2014, 01:57 AM
My Y chromosome badge suddenly disappeared from my homepage, I think they're updating their Y-tree !
Now I am both Em35.1+ and E-P46+ which is very strange ! :laugh:

It seems weird. How frequently do they make updates?



FTDNA have just re-classified me from R1b-P312 (which is correct as my DF99+ result came from FullGenomes) to R-P37.
They list P37 as a subclade of U152, and they seem not to be bothered in the slightest by the fact that I have tested U152-.
As I mentioned earlier, they previously erroneously twice classified me as L21+, even though I have tested L21-.

Do you mean they have re-classified you just today?

ballardgen
10-07-2014, 09:48 AM
We have a new CTS4528+ (171593 - Shannon) in the Ireland project. What's the exact relationship between CTS4528 and DF100?

-Paul
(DF41+)

Paul - We cant tell for sure at the moment, Only that both CTS4528 and DF100 seem to test positive together at the same level so far.

Adrian Ballard - CTS4528/DF100 Private Project Manager
https://www.facebook.com/groups/r1b1a1a1a1c/
https://sites.google.com/site/cts4528/

GTC
10-07-2014, 10:15 AM
It seems weird. How frequently do they make updates?


FTDNA has "committed" to making Y-tree updates "at least annually", however at the moment the tree is still a mess so they may be making small changes as and when.

GoldenHind
10-07-2014, 05:29 PM
Do you mean they have re-classified you just today?

I don't check my FTDNA personal page on a daily basis, but this last misclassification certainly occurred within the last week or so.

EDIT: I just checked my personal page, and they now have me classified as P312 once again. I hadn't got around yet to contacting them about the erroneous P37 classification, so they must have spotted the error on their own. It looks to me that they are re-examing the classifications of everyone who took the Geno 2.0 test.

vettor
10-07-2014, 06:09 PM
I don't check my FTDNA personal page on a daily basis, but this last misclassification certainly occurred within the last week or so.

EDIT: I just checked my personal page, and they now have me classified as P312 once again. I hadn't got around yet to contacting them about the erroneous P37 classification, so they must have spotted the error on their own. It looks to me that they are re-examing the classifications of everyone who took the Geno 2.0 test.

Mine has changed and it includes many new negative SNP's. ( lucky I did not do single SNP tests )
I was told:
-since Ftdna stopped accepting natgeno2 negative transfers from April 2014, the ( ftdna ) started investigating individually these people ( who transferred from April ) in late August.

Maybe.......ftdna are investigating all Natgeno2 transfers to ftdna

Kwheaton
10-07-2014, 06:59 PM
I have already reported this but my 3rd cousin whose kit I manage did 3 SNP tests for which he was positive so he should be listed as DF97 but instead lists M222 in red! Arrrgh!

ArmandoR1b
10-08-2014, 11:27 AM
I have already reported this but my 3rd cousin whose kit I manage did 3 SNP tests for which he was positive so he should be listed as DF97 but instead lists M222 in red! Arrrgh!

I'm not seeing DF97 in the FTDNA haplotree or the ISOGG tree and the Morley PDF doesn't show it to be Geno 2.0 tested. The FTDNA haplotree is based on the Geno 2.0 results. If DF97, or the other tested SNPs, isn't in the tree then FTDNA doesn't have a way to show your 3rd cousin as presumed positive for M222. You'll have to wait

The same thing happens with DF27. If I already know a person is P310 in Geno 2.0 and I ask them to get a DF27 test and they get a positive result they still aren't shown to be presumed positive for P312 which they should be because P312 is between P310 and DF27.

ArmandoR1b
10-08-2014, 11:37 AM
Mine has changed and it includes many new negative SNP's. ( lucky I did not do single SNP tests )
I was told:
-since Ftdna stopped accepting natgeno2 negative transfers from April 2014, the ( ftdna ) started investigating individually these people ( who transferred from April ) in late August.

Maybe.......ftdna are investigating all Natgeno2 transfers to ftdna

FTDNA didn't even start accepting negative results from Geno 2.0 until April 29. It was months after April 29 that they stopped accepting negative transfers. They had supposedly fixed the problem in August or September for new transfers but I pointed out to FTDNA that a recent transfer did not have negative results. It seems they fixed the problem for all Geno 2.0 transfers on Sep 30 when I was informed that the case I had pointed out was corrected. Sep 30 is probably when the Goldenhind was switched and t is when your negative results showed up.

Sep 2013 is when FTDNA started showing all positive SNP markers transferred from Geno 2.0 and not just the terminal SNP.

vettor
10-08-2014, 05:42 PM
FTDNA didn't even start accepting negative results from Geno 2.0 until April 29. It was months after April 29 that they stopped accepting negative transfers. They had supposedly fixed the problem in August or September for new transfers but I pointed out to FTDNA that a recent transfer did not have negative results. It seems they fixed the problem for all Geno 2.0 transfers on Sep 30 when I was informed that the case I had pointed out was corrected. Sep 30 is probably when the Goldenhind was switched and t is when your negative results showed up.

Sep 2013 is when FTDNA started showing all positive SNP markers transferred from Geno 2.0 and not just the terminal SNP.

I have a different story from ftdna.............I recently got mine fixed from Darren in Ftdna ............but, for me I need to inform him on any negatives I have found in my natgeno2 download and he will make the changes manually in my ftdna tree............so, its still not entirely fixed ..........or, it only works for very new natgeno2 transfers

In chris morley program.........i end up with 2 different data but the final result is the same

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/isoggpredict_zpsc62a69ba.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/isoggpredict_zpsc62a69ba.jpg.html)

above is the isogg from chris morley , it still sits well with the isogg tree

GoldenHind
10-09-2014, 01:24 AM
FTDNA didn't even start accepting negative results from Geno 2.0 until April 29. It was months after April 29 that they stopped accepting negative transfers. They had supposedly fixed the problem in August or September for new transfers but I pointed out to FTDNA that a recent transfer did not have negative results. It seems they fixed the problem for all Geno 2.0 transfers on Sep 30 when I was informed that the case I had pointed out was corrected. Sep 30 is probably when the Goldenhind was switched and t is when your negative results showed up.

Sep 2013 is when FTDNA started showing all positive SNP markers transferred from Geno 2.0 and not just the terminal SNP.

Your surmise appears to be correct, as my haplotree page now shows a number of negative results that I don't believe were there before.