GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-12 > 1135451336
From: Michael Maddi <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New R1b and its subclades Haplogroup Project Launched
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:08:56 -0800 (PST)
I'm just a newbie myself, only having joined this list
in July and having been tested for 37 markers yDNA and
HVR1 and HVR2 mtDNA at FTDNA in October. At that time
I also joined and became co-administrator of the
Sicily project at FTDNA. So I don't have all the
experience that others have - but on the other hand I
don't have the baggage that might bring along.
First of all, from everything I know and have read on
this list, to me FTDNA is the best place to have a
project. I am using their website template and
fine-tuning it a bit, but I may move the website to
geocities or something like that in the future. Right
now what FTDNA provides for the website is quite
adequate. I do appreciate their quality customer
service. A couple of weeks ago, a potential member had
a problem in joining the project. With one e-mail to
FTDNA, it was resolved and he was a member the next
day. Another example of their responsiveness to admins
is the question of joining more than 2 projects. My
co-admin and I had an e-mail exchange with Bennett
Greenspan in October about the need to allow customers
to join more than 2 projects, e.g., a surname, a
geographical for the paternal line and a geographical
for the maternal line. Now we all see that FTDNA has
greatly expanded the number of projects a customer can
join, even more than we requested in October. Another
great advantage is having the ability to attract new
members who initially tested through National
Geographic's project - 7 of our 21 members were
initially from that project.
Now, as to SNP testing, it's no secret that FTDNA has
had serious problems with turnaround time. The
turnaround time for their YSTR testing has
significantly improved recently. I'm not so sure that
that's the case with their SNP testing. Time will
tell. This is the reason I had the multiplex test at
EA. I was predicted R1b by FTDNA but had no close
matches in their database, so I was skeptical of that
prediction and wanted an SNP test. The multiplex at EA
gave me just what I was looking for. It also confirmed
that I'm R1b1c. I am awaiting S21 and M160 test
results from EA. It's clear that if you're sure that
your haplogroup is R1b, EA is the place for a SNP test
because of all the groundbreaking work they're doing
there. If you're not R1b and already have your YSTR
testing at FTDNA, their new SNP testing options are
attractive. The only question I have is whether they
have devoted enough resources to improve their
turnaround time significantly. One of our members just
ordered the SNP test for the J haplogroup. I will be
watching closely to see how soon he gets his results.
So the bottom line is this. Maybe FTDNA is not Bob
Stafford's cup of tea, but for most people who want to
start a project, it's the best place to go. If you
want to talk about SNP tests, it's not so clear that
FTDNA can effectively offer the range of services of
EA and other companies, although that may be changing.
I hope that is changing because the more companies
that do a great job, the more options we have.
> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:37:48 EST
> Subject: Re: [DNA] New R1b and its subclades
> Haplogroup Project Launched
> Ah, still stuck in anything but FTDNA mode I see.
> The premise has been - an individual has already
> tested at FTDNA and they
> have predicted he is R1b. He wants to go deeper. He
> has two choices:
> 1. Order a multiplex type test from another company.
> A test kit is sent to
> the individual, he takes the test, sends it back.
> Waits for results to find
> out what sub-clade or R1b he is. Plus he finds out
> what he wasn't - I, J, etc..
> 2. Order the test from his Personal Page at FTDNA.
> Wait for results to find
> out what sub-clade or R1b he is.
> Obviously you believe #1, the more expensive and
> more inconvenient method
> which also tells him stuff he already knows is the
> way to go.
> When an individual gets tested, he usually isn't
> going in looking
> specifically for a test that will show he is R1b1c*.
> He either doesn't have a clue to
> his Haplogroup (not tested or not predictable), or
> believes he is some major
> group such as R1b. If he doesn't know the Haplogroup
> - then yes, absolutely
> take the multiplex. It will tell him what he wants.
> However, if he knows he is
> R1b, is already involved with a testing company, and
> the testing company can
> give him the information he is looking for, for less
> money - why change? Why
> start over? I suspect if it were any other company,
> you would have a
> different opinion. And yes, FTDNA checks for R1b1c*.
> I have no problem with the multiplex test. I took it
> myself and discovered I
> was also R1b1c*. I was also very happy with the
> service I received from EA.
> However, that was before FTDNA's new sub-clade
> tests. If it would have come
> out earlier, I would have gone with the FTDNA test.
> It would have been the
> logical thing to do.
> OK. I am done with this thread. Its been fun, but I
> have more constructive
> things to do. Like start Christmas shopping:)
> Bill D
> In a message dated 12/24/2005 12:09:43 A.M. Eastern
> Standard Time,
> I see now. I thought he meant the rare markers were
> The multiplex tests has as many markers below M269
> as "The Works," so they
> can be had for much less than a $200 test. They
> each test one the other
> doesn't, the last time I looked. They get most of
> them, so their R1b1c* is
> pretty much in accordnace with the two different
> If someone wants R1b1c* according to the trees (on
> nearly so), he would
> have to take the multiplex or "The Works," so FTDNA
> wouldn't be an option.
> Bob Stafford
> Actually what he said was that the testing path for
> R1b1c* at FTDNA was the
> same as the multiplex, but less expensive, and
> without all the extraneous
> markers. He also said the testing doesn't go any
> deeper, but neither does
> else unless you want to pay $200.
> He was describing a product and company he was happy
> with. He was not, as
> you said, pointing out the markers FTDNA did not
> test for nor whether the
> was worthwhile.
> Bill D
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
|Re: [DNA] New R1b and its subclades Haplogroup Project Launched by Michael Maddi <>|