Oct 5View Source
My results for 67 STR are in now I don't have any matches. I feel like a rare bird. I have X2b mtdna too.
---In email@example.com, <class1driver@...> wrote:See below about CTS3087 recently posted by Robert Casey on L21.Best,Daryl---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Subject: [R1b-L21-Project] New Analysis of CTS3087 - Attn Mike W updates
CTS3087 should test positive for over 75 67 marker submissions and represents another medium sized branch under L513. CTS3087 has already been added to the ISOGG haplotree and has a GD of 17 between the five known positive tests at 67 markers. It is highly recommended that N83227 (Butler) be upgraded from 37 markers to 67 (CTS3087+). N114377 (McNabb) is also CTS3087+ and appears to have only taken the Nat Geo 2.0 test but no YSTR tests to date. This submission needs to order the FTDNA 67 marker test. N113232 (Powers) has tested positive for CTS3087 (found in the Powers project). This submission needs to send the raw results to David Reynolds and order the 67 marker YSTR test. Here are the links to the analysis:
Mike W updates:
1) Here are new submissions that should test CTS3087 positive that are not found in your spreadsheet:
ID_____URL (all are untested for CTS3087 but should test positive):
N113232 POWER_et_al (this is Nat Geo only - no YSTRs - CTS3087 positive)
2) If you here are more CTS3087 negative submissions (all L513 positive from David's summary):
41466, 130361, 151979, 159822, 188436, 228772, 228829, 246556, 272519, 274410, N88177.
3) Recommend that you add three off modal mutations to 513-D2. Two have all five positive submissions with the mutation and one has 4 of 5 with off modal mutation:
570 <= 16, 413a <= 22 and 447 >= 26.
4) I have recently extracted all Y-Search IDs which can be extracted from my CTS3087 spreadsheet (changes are only ones missing as of March, 2013).
5) I have been looking at any changes in YSTR values and here are a few observations: a) a couple of dozen in the 120000 to 150000 ranges had corrupted values of 389b (probably my error or some could be from your spreadsheet as well). b) three or four submissions changed 464 values (FTDNA changes that I should have logged); c) two or three 0 values changed to normal values (FTDNA changes that I should have logged); d) one submission just did not match even closely (probably a transcription error on my part). I will try to capture the 464 and 0 changes and see if you caught these changes for future changes.