GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-02 > 1077544062
From: "Debby Reagan" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] genotypes/print test results
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:47:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
This is my guess as to what happened:
The difference between 2.0 and 2.5 is that 2.0 did not record and, or show
the Sub-Saharan African, but instead, melded it into the Indo-European with
a little taken off of the East Asian and Native American. This is a bit
strange, I think, and should be explained in such a way that us dummies can
Mary with the cats
Apparently, there is a small part of the population who have some Native
American ancestry that also has African ancestry and that African ancestry
wasn't being picked up by the old 2.0 test. But, when they found this flaw,
they redid the algorithm and were able to pick the African ancestry up.
This small population are people who have Native AND African ancestry AND
relatively high admixture. There are tribes who are "black Indians" and I
think this is what is being picked up. For those of you who have been
wanting a more definite distinction of NA, should be rejoicing that they
have figured out how to pick up another faction of the NA population.
I am TRULY happy as I know about my Native American ancestry, and this is
proving it.... and adding info not previously known. Now, all I have to do
is concentrate on where my known NA ancestors lived and where their parents
came from and check what black Indian tribe(s) were there and hopefully be
able to find my tribe and paper proof of it. I know I might not be able to
paper proof it, but just finding my NA ancestors tribe will be good enough
for me. And, knowing that it is a black Indian tribe I'm looking for
definitely narrows down the field of research I'll have to dig through!
Rejoice!!! One more part of our Native American ancestry and history has
been scientificly found in our DNA!!!!
Warm Regards from Maine,
|Re: [DNA] genotypes/print test results by "Debby Reagan" <>|