GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329834909


From: William Hurst <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] This week's new mtDNA sequences on GenBank (20-FEB-2012)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:35:09 -0500
References: <N1-UMQpKWYXc3@Safe-mail.net>
In-Reply-To: <N1-UMQpKWYXc3@Safe-mail.net>


Hi Didier and all,

> From:
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> I am following this list and your messages are welcome but may I suggest that it would be best if you were clearly distinguishing those new entries adding nodes to the tree from others.

Ian is performing a great service for those of us interested in mtDNA trees. I would rather have his e-mails sooner than later. You are asking him to do several hours of research before sending the messages.

For example, there are two K sequences is this batch. One is the first K2a1 in my K Project and maybe at FTDNA. Dr. Behar had two examples in his 2006 K tree and I've seen none since. I even had to create a new Subgroup on our mtDNA Results page for it. It doesn't add a node on the tree, but it will allow the PhyloTree to have a second reference sequence for the subclade, as I have pointed out to Dr. van Oven.

The K1a1b1 is the second example on GenBank in a branch headed by 5583T. One more will make a subclade. We have one more in the Project, so now I'll try to get that person to submit his results.

The point is that Ian doesn't always have the info to distinguish which entries will add new nodes. Even when he does, that should not delay his announcements. Ideally, someone in each haplogroup immediately looks at his e-mails and gets to work figuring out their implications for the relevant tree.

Bill Hurst


This thread: