GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1115194646
From: "Malcolm Dodd" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:17:33 +0100
"Malcolm, you appear to be confounding your anger with one testing
company and the way they describe SNPs in their literature with both
myself and SNP testing in general. Your rationale for jumbling these
four elements eludes me."
David, I highly value your input to this List. My anger at the way my
Surname Group participants have been treated by FTDNA may have spilled
over into the wording of my posting.
There is a half-truth in the FTDNA STR prediction offer which says - "If
we are wrong in our prediction, we will keep testing your Y-DNA at no
additional charge until we have your Haplogroup confirmed."
To describe a product which does not fully do what participants have
paid for can hardly be described as "wonderful".
You wrote -
> Only FTDNA's wonderful SNP tested databases from the Hammer lab at the
U of Arizona could have done this for me. They are the only firm that
offers the world - wide SNP tested databases that are automatically
compared to our Y-STR scores so we can see the present day geographical
distribution of our haplotypes.<
The linkage of the wonderful database and the testing company FTDNA in
your posting in my opinion gives a misleading impression.
In brief - The haplogroup information provided by FTDNA to participants
leaves much to be desired and the participants who think they are buying
a SNP test to identify their haplogroup are not - because FTDNA do not
test H1 for instance.
|Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA by "Malcolm Dodd" <>|