PDA

View Full Version : FTDNA - Deep Clade 2.0



Joe B
09-03-2014, 04:44 PM
This was just posted by FTDNA. Does anybody know anything about Deep Clade 2.0?

2014 International Conference on Genetic Genealogy Schedule Released
Saturday 10/11/2014
4:30-5:00 Deep Clade 2.0 Carlos/Bennett

GTC
09-03-2014, 05:21 PM
The only thing I know about it is that Bennett Greenspan said it was in the works at their last Annual Conference.

It will be interesting to hear how they intend to go about it now that the Y tree is so much bigger.

ArmandoR1b
09-04-2014, 12:28 PM
I hope they release the test soon and for a decent price. There are a lot of people that can't afford the BigY even when it is on sale.

GTC
09-04-2014, 02:19 PM
I hope they release the test soon and for a decent price. There are a lot of people that can't afford the BigY even when it is on sale.

Yes, price will be a crucial factor with this.

The previous Deep Clade, based on the very out of date YCC tree, worked reasonably well at the time for some haplogroups (e.g. R1b) but was not very useful for others such as I. Granted, the Geno version of the tree has moved on a long way since then but it remains to be seen whether Deep Clade version 2 will be beneficial to all haplogroups.

Joe B
09-04-2014, 02:37 PM
If FTDNA bases the Deep Clade 2.0 testing protocal on the screwed up Genographic tree they may loose a lot of money. I wonder how the lab will deal with the large number of useless SNPs in the Geno/FTDNA tree? Or conflicting results like Geno haplogroup R-YSC0000072 (around R1b-L23) that is positive on the SNP array and negative when tested by Sanger sequencing.

GTC
09-04-2014, 02:55 PM
If FTDNA bases the Deep Clade 2.0 testing protocal on the screwed up Genographic tree they may loose a lot of money. I wonder how the lab will deal with the large number of useless SNPs in the Geno/FTDNA tree? Or conflicting results like Geno haplogroup R-YSC0000072 (around R1b-L23) that is positive on the SNP array and negative when tested by Sanger sequencing.

Good question, and one that should be put squarely to Bennett Greenspan if he doesn't address it in his presentation.

FTDNA is wedded to the Geno tree as, since Thomas Krahn left, they have no in-house haplotree expertise -- which is abundantly demonstrated by the (wholly avoidable) mess they have made of their own tree, and have not yet fully rectified regardless of the fact that some highly experienced and knowledgeable haplogroup project administrators have been in contact with FTDNA to try to sort out their respective branches.

Presumably, FTDNA will not make wholesale corrections to their tree until Spencer Wells gives them his approval. I have no idea how current Wells considers himself to be on the Y tree these days. It's been a very long time since he published on the subject.