tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post1487860874450348472..comments2023-10-29T05:54:30.033-04:00Comments on The Lineal Arboretum: The Strange Case of the Missing Y37 MatchJim Owstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489905161227202406noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-63662886595127125692018-02-16T20:28:46.125-05:002018-02-16T20:28:46.125-05:00Thanks for the clarification Michael. Thanks for the clarification Michael. Jim Owstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13489905161227202406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-41685946218900385572018-02-14T19:49:18.989-05:002018-02-14T19:49:18.989-05:00You are correct,my post should have said all at GD...You are correct,my post should have said all at GD of 4 or less at the 37 point level. Our group is Total of the 83 37 point matches plus 12 and 25 point members. All testers are from a MRCA b @ 1685. This would include at least 4 different surnames who have found their link to the main surname.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769935980615070469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-29785942543217127122018-02-13T19:58:27.164-05:002018-02-13T19:58:27.164-05:00Every grouping is different. How many were sample...Every grouping is different. How many were sampled in your surname group? In our case, everyone of our participants lost at least one person. A GD=5 should not show at 37 markers even when related, but will show at 67 markers. I'm hearing from others that are seeing this with their results. My caveat is that this is one study and one study alone. More need to be documented before it can be determined how prevalent this phenomenon is. Jim Owstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13489905161227202406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-21805660981525141672018-02-13T19:54:24.354-05:002018-02-13T19:54:24.354-05:00Mutations are random and for some of the more dist...Mutations are random and for some of the more distance matches, it may be a result of convergence. The 37 markers are also part of the larger 67 markers. Jim Owstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13489905161227202406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-72438791854018383382018-02-13T09:02:00.393-05:002018-02-13T09:02:00.393-05:00Each surname study will be different in results. S...Each surname study will be different in results. Some studies I have looked at have so many different and ongoing mutations I would doubt one could make a whole lot of determinations. In my surname group I looked at the Total results and found no loss of testers from one bank to the next bank ....meaning from 37 to 67 to the 111. I have 83 matches at the 37 point level,all at GD of 5 or less. No testers were listed more than GD of 5. Of those 83 a total of 45 testers did not upgrade. That leaves 38 testers that did upgrade. Shown at the 67 point level I have 38 matches. Same matches as the 37 minus the 45 who did not upgrade. These 67 point matches were up to and a GD of 5. In the 111 matches,I show 17 matches . Of the 67 point testers who did not upgrade were 20. We have lost a tester here from 67 to 111. The GD of the 111 were up to GD of 8. As far as my test group...there were no testers who showed at 67 or 111 who did not show at a 37 point readout. A tester within a study who does so would IMO be a rare occurence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769935980615070469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946578971422285697.post-80463425101844350512018-02-12T11:07:42.139-05:002018-02-12T11:07:42.139-05:00Very interesting. Do you have any idea why this i...Very interesting. Do you have any idea why this is occurring? Are the same 37 marker locations included in the 67 marker locations? If so, have you inquired at FTDNA what the reason is for this? Thank youKent Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356187245661856343noreply@blogger.com