Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: R-L21 Plus Project News

  1. #1
    Banned
    Posts
    13,888
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-Z253>BY93500
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland

    Smile R-L21 Plus Project News

    Hi. I am the group Administrator for Family Tree DNA's R-L21 Plus Project. I thought I would start this thread to post project news and updates. The R-L21 Plus Project is separate from the Yahoo group called the R1b-L21 Project, although many of the same people are involved in both.

    If you are an FTDNA customer with at least 12 y-dna STR markers and an L21+ (S145+, M529+, etc.) result from some reputable dna testing company, or a positive result for one of the SNPs downstream of L21, then you should join the R-L21 Plus Project.

    What is on my mind this morning is the current member subgrouping on our Y-DNA Results pages. The R-L21 Plus Project is a large y-dna project, with over 2700 members. Originally, in the early days of the project, members were grouped geographically, according to the country in which each member's y-dna mdka (most distant known ancestor) was born. That was a fairly easy-to-maintain scheme. Later, we went to grouping according to terminal SNP. That was fairly simple at first, but with the advent of Geno 2.0 and then Chromo2, the L21 tree has put forth a lot of new branchlets, most of them off the old branches and subbranches. That's great, but it makes managing the member subgrouping categories a chore. Now along comes Full Genome and Big Y testing and the forecast of what some have characterized as a veritable tsunami of new L21+ SNPs. That promises to render member subgrouping by terminal SNP - the current system - a nightmare of byzantine complexity.

    I am thinking of avoiding this problem by reducing the number of member subgrouping categories to DF63 and the branches immediately below DF13 and including categories for those who have tested L21+ or DF13+ but who have not yet tested positive for anything further downstream. All downstream subgroups would be subsumed in the immediate branch from which they stem. For example, all the members currently in the DF49, DF23, Z2961, M222, DF85, and DF97 categories would be grouped together in the much larger, catch-all DF49 category.

    This would reduce the project categories to the following:

    L21 (Need further SNP testing)
    DF13 (Need further SNP testing)
    DF63
    CTS2457
    CTS4466
    DF21
    DF41
    DF49
    FGC5496
    L96
    L144
    L371
    L513
    L679
    L1335
    Z251
    Z253
    Z255

    As you can see, those are still plenty of categories, and there may be more to add, as new results come in. Some of the current categories may themselves eventually be subsumed under larger categories beneath DF13.

    Many if not all of the subgroups have their own separate projects. Those projects are the proper places for fine subgroup and sub-sub-group, etc., resolution and categorization.

    I have not done this yet. For one thing, even reducing and simplifying things takes a lot of work in a project as large as the R-L21 Plus Project. I hope you all will bear with me and stick with the project.

    Your input is appreciated.
    Last edited by rms2; 12-29-2013 at 05:53 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     Celtarion (12-30-2013),  lpreston (12-30-2013)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,051
    Sex
    Location
    Central United States
    Ethnicity
    Celtic, Goidelic
    Y-DNA (P)
    DF13>FGC5494>FGC5496
    mtDNA (M)
    H11a2a>C12014T

    United States of America Netherlands Isle of Man Scotland Poland Northern Ireland
    Yes, can see your points. With DF63 and 15 different DF13 subclades, the L21 project could now be considered a large umbrella project like the R1b Haplogroup (M343) and Subclades Y DNA project to help funnel people to their major down stream subclades. I feel this project is still very valid and will maintain a solid source of Haplotypes for origin and dispersal research assisting the possible determining points of origin for L21 and its various subclades. With informed people like yourself and others, this project is an island in a sea of SNP information, with enough high ground to withstand the "tsunami" effects.

    Good Job.

    MJost
    148326, FGC-0FW1R, YSID6 & YF3272 R-DF13>FGC5494>*7448>*5496>*5521>*5511>*5539>*5538>* 5508>*5524
     
    Watterson USA GD1/67 & GD3/111, *5508+. GD1’s father’s sister-23andme pred. 3rd Cous w/ 0.91% DNA shared-3 seg. Largest on Chr1 w/non-Euro admix affirms my NPE paternal Watterson line via aDNA & YDNA. A 2nd pred. 4th cous has same DKA b. 1840's Georgia and MDKA d 1703 IOM. 3rd Cousin FtDNA FF is from the Watterson Ala. *5538+ b. IOM w/ GD6/67 & GD8/111 -SGD3. FGC5539+ a Scot-Ross GD13/111 -SGD8

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MJost For This Useful Post:

     lpreston (12-30-2013),  rms2 (12-29-2013)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    338
    Sex
    Location
    The Salish Sea
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Levite
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z251 (FGC11963+)
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c7a1a

    Might finally be time for me to start up the Jewish Z251 Project (which I had previously considered doing as a Jewish DF13 Project, and before that considered doing as a Jewish L21 Project). At present, there is not an R-Z251 sub-project off-shoot from R-L21 Plus, probably because all the Irwin R-L555 have their own Clan Irwin Surname Study Project, and most of the 11EE people probably do not care about such things, except for the ones that were receptive to testing L583. I've noticed as more and more new SNPs get identified under L21, the old "Baltic Cluster" group has been less and less interesting to most folks except for me and my L583 buds. Am trying to figure out how in the world I will ever get anyone to consider testing the new SNPs that show up for me from Full Genomes, one of which will undoubtedly be the long-sought Baltic Cluster SNP.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to seferhabahir For This Useful Post:

     Celtarion (12-30-2013),  piper1b (01-09-2014),  rms2 (12-29-2013)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    846
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-S1051 9919-A
    mtDNA (M)
    U5b1e

    Canada United States of America United Kingdom France Ukraine
    Hi Richard,

    Glad to see you posting here again. The L21+ Group at FTNDA has been really helpful in terms of looking for patterns and hunting for unique mutations. Hopefully everyone testing positive for L21 will continue to join.

    George

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to George Chandler For This Useful Post:

     rms2 (12-29-2013)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    339
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-L21 L513*

    United States of America Ireland Germany Belgium Wallonia
    Richard - I don't disagree with the direction since the growing demands will only increase with new SNPs and (hopefully) more people tested. But I don't know how all the sub-sub-groups could ever get anywhere near the quality support we all enjoy today from yourself, Mike Walsh, and all the other volunteer experts.

    Are there consistent approaches or tools that make sense to suggest for the sub-groups, in a way that helps keep consistent support up and down the groups on the SNP tree, and would allow the sub-groups to continue to share in the common expertise? One example is that perhaps if Mike Walsh's Excel file becomes unmanageable, it could be split up or perhaps have different sections assigned to the subgroups, so that everyone still shares the benefits with Mike acting as advisor. I'm not suggesting that that one example is the right approach, I'm just suggesting that that kind of coordination would benefit us all.

    Dave

  10. #6
    Banned
    Posts
    13,888
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-Z253>BY93500
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    I may leave things the way they are and hope that FTDNA upgrades the GAP (Group Admin Page) so that major branch headings could be created with subgroups under them. Another thing that would be helpful is for a new R tree to come online so that member terminal SNPs appear on the Y-DNA Results pages in some form like "R-This" or "R1b-That" (the shorthand). That would make it quick and easy to sort members and assign them to categories based on terminal SNPs.

    With the impending explosion of new SNPs, however, I think it may be awhile before FTDNA updates its R tree. Can't say as I blame them for holding off.

  11. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,132
    Sex
    Location
    UK
    Nationality
    Welsh
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-DF49
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2e

    European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    I may leave things the way they are and hope that FTDNA upgrades the GAP (Group Admin Page) so that major branch headings could be created with subgroups under them. Another thing that would be helpful is for a new R tree to come online so that member terminal SNPs appear on the Y-DNA Results pages in some form like "R-This" or "R1b-That" (the shorthand). That would make it quick and easy to sort members and assign them to categories based on terminal SNPs.

    With the impending explosion of new SNPs, however, I think it may be awhile before FTDNA updates its R tree. Can't say as I blame them for holding off.
    Being able to create sub-groups wouldn't just be an idea for haplogroup and geographic projects but also surname projects, I think petitioning FTDNA for this would be good !!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to jdean For This Useful Post:

     rms2 (12-30-2013)

  13. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,283
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I just did a count of the higher/earlier level subclade branching with the L21+ confirmed folks. This goes beyond the L21 project to any project I can find someone.

    10 - true L21* (DF13- DF63-)

    66 - DF63

    3261 - DF13 (but DF13 is split among the following)

    315 - DF1/L513

    302 - DF21

    104 - DF41

    1226 - DF49 (but it split among the two immediately below)
    90 - DF49xM222
    1136 - M222

    157 - L1335

    35 - Z251

    390 - Z253

    213 - Z255

    84 - CTS4466

    53 - CTS1571 (& L144)

    27 - L371

    6 - CTS3386

    5 - CTS2457.2

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     Mag Uidhir 6 (12-31-2013)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    153
    Sex
    Location
    Cork, Ireland
    Ethnicity
    Sth Western Brythonic
    Nationality
    Breton (French)
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b L21>Z253>FGC8244
    mtDNA (M)
    M4"67 > M30

    France Bretagne Kroaz Du France Bretagne Ireland France Italy
    I was wondering, with the increase of potential new SNPs under L21, new customers, new testing coming... and as you have stated, the workload may become more and more difficult as L21 is a massive project, I'm suggesting 2 things here.

    1. Either you keep the L21 project as is and the admins of the project will maintain the project as it is including sub grouping and sub sub grouping etc.., new members, new sub groups... but in this case, I would suggest to add some co-admins to help to maintain the project by splitting the groups among them. High level of datas may increase the workload and why not getting ISOGG involved at some stage.

    2. Or as you have stated, reducing the number of member subgrouping categories (we would loose the clarity of the information), but it would imply that among the existing SNPs that there is a distinct project created apart of L21 project like Z253, L1335 (make sure that there is a distinct project for each of them)... and a new project be created for new SNPs but validated by some Project Admins if it is under L21 and why not getting ISOGG involved at some stage.

    By involving ISOGG, I don't mean that you guys and and other admins are not doing a great work, you have done so much and this is where my learning is coming from, and I'm glad to see you there, however, I was thinking more from a support and data perspective.

    What would be interesting is to know what further development FTDNA has planned with GAP and the new phylogenetic tree is still not updated, it would help to make further decision. Simplifying the L21 project will reduce the workload, but will reduce also the visibility of the information of sub sub grouping but in the meantime, it's doubling the work with the separated project who can provide deeper insight.

    Joss.

  16. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,430
    Sex
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Ethnicity
    Pictland/Deira
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-M222-FGC5864
    mtDNA (M)
    H5r*

    It shouldn't be a matter for those running the L21 project to oversee who does what lower down though, IMHO. Especially not with M222 which was around a long time before L21 came along and has been highly active ever since.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Z36 News
    By emmental in forum R1b-U152
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 09-22-2020, 12:38 AM
  2. Big News!
    By rms2 in forum Stevens/Stephens Surname Project
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: 01-05-2020, 11:14 PM
  3. R L21 Project News
    By rms2 in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-21-2018, 06:39 PM
  4. Big Y News in the Q-M242 Project
    By Táltos in forum Q
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2014, 11:13 PM
  5. News
    By History-of-Things in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-28-2013, 03:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •