Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-01 > 1105593674

From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Male Line Specific Y-STR Average Mutation Rates -- theone size shoe/(haplotype mutation rate) fits all approach is not valid,imo -- corrected URL link
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:21:25 -0500
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Dang! John. You are right. It's a typo in that table. Darn eyes of mine.
It's been there for years which you can tell by the kit number. No one
else ever caught it. You're good!

I have the correct allele value in the main page tables:

I have the correct allele value in the 37 marker table, carefully
highlighted, which I've been pitching your way with most of my messages
as the reference table.

And I have it wrong, a typo, in the Success Story page, but not
highlighted as you point out.

I just double checked it in my GAP page at to make
sure. The correct allele at the marker DYS464c for that kit is: "16".

It is clearly a typo on my part in that one table. The table you picked.
Probably because it had the Henry Numbers in it. I just added the Henry
Numbers to the 37 marker table yesterday, or was it two days ago.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused and I look forward to your
edited/corrected new message. When you send the new one, I would
appreciate it if you deleted the old messages from the archives which
have the data wrong for my project. It is simple to do. But the poster
must do the deleting. Ann can fill you in on how to do that if you need
help. I prefer the messages with the wrong DNA mutation data for my
project gone, just like I don't like wrong genealogical data on my
family studies staying up on the net. So since you used my data and
tables (typo and all), at this point, please delete the prior two
tutorial messages messages. And I do thank you very much for your
contribution in doing this tutorial message on counting transmission
events, mutation events, and calculating the average mutation rates. And
a double thank you for finding the typo.

Charles Kerchner

John Chandler wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>>I count only 2 mutations in the second panel, i.e.., markers 13-25.
> Hmmm. It seems that there is indeed a clerical mutation, but it's
> not clear what's right. I collected the data for my write-up from
> the "Success stories" frame of the following web page:
> The 2nd-panel haplotype for kit 05726 there is clearly shown as
> 17 8 10 11 11 26 15 19 30 15 15 .15. 16
> The third 15 in that row is not highlighted in yellow, but it is
> different from the 16's in all the rest of that column. If that 15
> were a 16, it would indeed reduce the mutation count from 3 to 2. Are
> you saying it really should be a 16?
> Does it actually matter anyway? The write-up is self-contained now
> because it contains all of its own data. Having already posted it
> twice, I think it might begin to get on people's nerves if I were to
> send it around yet again.
> John Chandler

This thread: