GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1115142133


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA Heritage,Family Tree DNA etc
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 6667


Ken,

I was thinking in comparison to the other two. Haplogroup predictions and the availability of SNP tests appear to be worth the extra cost of testing there for those interested in the information. Posters often cite it as a reason for their choice of FTDNA. However, there could be a better alternative.

Bob Stafford

Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:Bob, Would you explain what you mean about FTDNA's "emphasis on ancient
ancestry"? I consider them rather weak concerning that aspect of their
business, so am curious?

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Stafford"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA
Heritage,Family Tree DNA etc


> Actually, there is no tradeoff between speed and cost. RG and DNAHeritage
are both faster and cheaper than FTDNA. Some may be willing to pay more at
FTDNA because of their emphasis on ancient ancestry. RG is much stronger in
genealogical applications.
>
> Bob Stafford
>



==============================
Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx



This thread: