GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220760436


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry.com compared to FTDNA (I1bs)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:07:16 -0600
References: <ea3bd9560809051659n28a52b47od5bb6c87c96ede3f@mail.gmail.com><e2f96c1b0809052108r16fbe4f8v9e074fb34e564f39@mail.gmail.com><ea3bd9560809052129h261240bfxa1d4669fa9c5777b@mail.gmail.com><e2f96c1b0809052226i5432eaf6naf24ae68e79fa26a@mail.gmail.com><ea3bd9560809060023w4f627cbbqc022ee1e2d59abe0@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-W1330E9539CFFB04BE6833BE45B0@phx.gbl><65a020c80809061018t417f9f60u89b9bb418f10263e@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-W1058AF0F95ACE204FD9809E45A0@phx.gbl><003301c91084$eee17410$6400a8c0@Ken1><BAY140-W3292884E4894CD1A2ACAE6E45A0@phx.gbl>


Haplotype "G7" says P37.2+ tested. Is that not true?
That result looks just fine for Western I2a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelda Percival" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry.com compared to FTDNA (I1bs)


>
> Ken,
> If you went to the webpage and the chart for those three Gilpin's then Yes
> I guess, the two tested at DNAFP and FTDNA were tested before the change
> of nomanclature, but the other just got there sults in the last few days
> from Ancestry.. so? probably are I2a's?? None are SNP tested.
>
>
> If someone running a I2a's program wants to talk with them about SNP
> testing further I'll send their email addresses but most of the Gilpins
> have only tested to see their relationship to other Gilpins.
>
> Nelda Nelda L. PercivalCopy Right information:
> http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/copyright_facts.htm
> ********************************************
> My websites
> http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/>; From:
> > To: > Date: Sat, 6 Sep
> 2008 18:59:08 -0600> Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry.com compared to FTDNA
> (I1bs)> > Nelda, Do you mean you have three I2a (P37.2+) Western
> haplotypes according > to the latest ISOGG nomenclature? These would have
> been called I1b1 in the > older nomenclature. At least this is what I
> conclude by looking at them. I > believe in this haplogroup case FTDNA's
> newest nomenclature would agree with > ISOGG.> > Ken> > ----- Original
> Message ----- > From: "Nelda Percival" <>> To:
> <>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 6:43 PM>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry.com compared to FTDNA (I1bs)> > > >> > Thank
> you Everyone who answered my request for assistance.> > here is where the
> information is posted at:> >
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/dna/gpc.htm>;
> >> > I now have three !
> I1bs.> >> > Nelda L. PercivalCopy Right information:> >
> http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/copyright_facts.htm>; >
> ********************************************> > My websites> >
> http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/>; >>
> > -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please
> send an email to > > with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message> > > > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from
> the list, please send an email to with
> the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>


This thread: