Koddo van de Caep van Guinea, SM/PROG - mtDNA?

Aubrey Strydom says "Hi Sharon.
Just wondering whose L0 you are attributing to Koddo van Guinea?
There seem to be some who want to call Lijsbeth Sanders her child and put mt L3b3 up to Koddo/Padoor instead of Lijsbeth Arabus."

He's right - Rut Cloete- the mtDNA descendant on the project, doesn't seem to be linked to her anymore. Or am I not looking carefully enough?

Rut's L0a1b2a seems to be in line from Regina van Rapenberg van Guinea

Agreed! I've removed Koddo's unsupported Haplo & unlisted Rut Cloete.
Does Koddo have any mtDNA descendants on Geni Sharon?
If not, then presumably she doesn't meet the project aims and should be unlisted all together?

In fact there are a further 13 progenitors who have haplos listed on the project with no supporting evidence!
I think it's essential to list either a tested descendant or citation for the claimed result (otherwise we could be disseminating false information.
We should also really list the name of the testing company wherever results are not uploaded to Geni.

The current nonsensical partnership between Koddo and Nicolaas Bort seems to be a remnant of 2 earlier incorrect versions of the tree where:
1. Koddo van Guinea was confused with Regina (van Rapenberg) van Guinea.
2. Regina was suggested as a mother candidate for Jannetjie Bort (therefore the partnership with Nicolaas Bort).

The discovery of Jannetjie's mtDNA haplogroup M (from India) - led to her disconnection from Regina/Koddo.....but somehow Nicolaas seems to have been left behind.

Could you please disconnect him Sharon.....unless anyone has a plausible reason to object?

Sincerely,

Ian William Garrett

Thanks for the sleuthing, Ian - I've removed Nicolaas Bort, SV/PROG.

Hi Sharon & Ian.
Wanted to suggest that all testing companies be cited including the ones uploaded as we go along - surely the other mtDNA and yDNA will be up-loadable to Geni at some point and not just their autosomal results as at present.
Where two companies use different nomenclature it would be useful to mention both, so that those who test can see their company's DNA mentioned and at least realize that there is a connection.
I have done this for my DNA at Joost Strijdom and Lijsbeth Arabus - for now in the Discussion tab - found that I could not do it on the DNA page - where it would actually be more useful.
23andMe have just gone to the new nomenclature for the yDNA and you can now easily find where in the haplotree their test goes to.
Aub

Hi Aubrey - cited where?

How about building a place for a citation into the template?
Perhaps below "discussion"
A reference to where the predicted Haplo originates is often buried somewhere in the discussion thread, but its cumbersome to have to read through all the waffle.
The way Anne Souchay is currently listed with a citation to FTDNA's Cape Dutch Project is an example of how we could do it.

I think that is going to make the Project unnecessarily long and complex.

Geographic origin of haplogroups are estimations, and change constantly - so best left to be accessed on the hyper-texted link to that haplogroup, imo.

on Anna Souchay - "via Cape Dutch Project" is confusing to most geni users. What Cape Dutch project? It's also not a citation referencing the tester, so what is the point of adding it on geni?
The reason for having the testee's name hypertexted is so that people can click on it and see more on their profile about their result, including who they tested with.
However, replacing the [confirmed by genetic test] with [confirmed by genetic test by 23 & Me / FTDNA etc] is also workable, if kept short.

On the nomenclature used by different companies -Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a function of how fast that company is updating its naming.
That seems to be most easily solved by putting the old nomenclature in brackets in the prog's heading as is already being done:
Eg
*Mbulali aZwide Haplogroup E-M2 (aka E1b1a)

Sorry - I worded that badly. I meant origin/source of the information - not geographic origin of the Haplo. But I agree that a citation on the progenitor's profile page would be preferable & keep the project neat.

But not all have one. For example where does Jeanne de la Batte's predicted Haplo J2a1a1 come from?

Her Geni descendant Jan is not listed as having been tested.
There is no discussion thread on the mtDNA project.
There is no citation on Jeanne's profile page verifying the Haplo claimed in the curator's note.

Private User, can you specify the source of your J2a1a1 attribution to your mtDNA ancestor, Jeanne de la Batte SM/PROG?

Jusl looking back, followed Rut Cloete's mtDNA up her maternal line and it stops propogating upwards at about the 5th generation - so doesn't get to Regina v. Rapenberg.
Do the curators have to enable this process or is it supposed to be automatic?

I have not tested myself, and to wit cannot recall the person whom tested - only it was not a Geni profile else the profile would have been added to the project and discussions opened etc. No issue should the 'predicted' result be removed and we follow a new/better approach. Sorry for not making additional contributions to the discussion at the moment.

Thanks Jan, hope you didn't think I picking on you, Jeanne was just the first progenitor (alphabetically) - that I found with no citation for the Haplo info.

I'm sure there are others. I'll pick through the list and check as I have time.

I think that it's definitely not a good idea to be picking people out. The project is for people to share what they've found out, not to have to justify themselves, unless there's a clear conflict between two results.
I've deliberately taken the approach that people can put as much or as little info as they have to hand. This is more relaxed than the FTDNA projects, and for a reason: crowd sourcing info must make it as easy as possible for people to share their info; so it relies on more and more people joining and corroborating for the data to skew towards accuracy. It's always going to be a working document, not a final source.

I agree with you completely Sharon when it comes to people sharing their own DNA results.

But when a progenitor is listed on the mtDNA Project with no tested descendants on Geni, (as many are), then the information has obviously been reported from some second hand source (Cape Dutch Project, FFYP, etc) -in which case I'd like to see a citation.

Just to know it does actually come from somewhere fairly reliable and isn't a mistake or someone's thumbsuck guess.

:-) As I said, I'm happy with the info as it is shared now. This is a crowd sourcing effort, and corroborating/ disputing claims are where the Discussion about correctness happens.

Growing the information is a collaborative effort and not a competition between sites. This project has always been run like that - from before geni had DNA uploads - and it will continue to encourage people to share what they know without having to be interrogated, and others to take away info they find here without question. DNA information isn't a copyrightable source, and geni is a collaborative site that encourages sharing.

Well, as project founder I'll defer to your preferred way of doing things....and rest my critical eye for a bit :) :) :)

:-)

Sharon, re. the given results:
Even though now on the new nomenacture 23&Me has a fixed number of test points on its sequencing chip, so you can't upgrade to look deeper into the halapotype as you can with FTDNA.
So for example my mtDNA is L3b with them but with FTDNA it is the deeper sub clade L3b3.
For yDNA the inital test with FTDNA I got a very basic R-M269, which went to a deeper clade R-L617 with a "backbone pack". 23&me shows me at a point on the tree maybe 1/4 of the way up between these two with R-L51.
Aub

It's a good point. Can you make it in a new Discussion from the mtDNA project?