DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

From: "Sharon Haggerty" <>
Subject: [R-M222] TIP reports
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:53:12 -0700
References: <4F886E41.3060709@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F886E41.3060709@earthlink.net>

I'm also uneasy about the TIP results. We have 2 men who have the same 4
times great grandfather (dates approx 1740-1826), and who differ on 2 of 67
markers. TIP comes back as:

...5 generations is 23.42%.
...6 generations is 43.12%.
...7 generations is 58.77%.
...8 generations is 70.71%.
...9 generations is 79.53%.
...10 generations is 85.90%.
...11 generations is 90.40%.

We are awaiting results on 111 markers.

Sharon Haggerty


----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Hedeen" <>
To: <>; "dna-r1b1c7" <>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: [R-M222] Byrne TMRCAs


> I don't like these TIP reports much as I haven't much confidence in
> them; however the extended 111 markers are very useful none the less.
> In TMRCA terms they make for better estimating particularly when trying
> to assess a more accurate assessment of M222 clade age. Unfortunately
> there aren't enough 111 extensions primarily due to cost. I am hopeful
> that FTDNA will reduce the costs, although since they just raised the
> fee for the deep clade testing I'm not optimistic. Susan

This thread:

• [R-M222] Byrne TMRCAs by Susan Hedeen <>

  • [R-M222] TIP reports by "Sharon Haggerty" <>

  • [R-M222] Byrne TMRCAs by