GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1115305797
From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Assistance with Results Interpretation
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, FTDNA does consider CDY an infinite allele. It appears to make a lot of jumps. Absent a contrary paper trail, It appears that 30538 has the ancestral haplotype, as he has the modal (most common) values at each marker. Thus, your comparison to him is equivalent to the the desired comparison of living to ancestral.
A single peak at CDY for 2274 raises the suspicion that there was a mutation in the primer area and that it might really be 37,39. However, I recall that in similar cases FTDNA has assured the participant that they made the call correctly. I am still not clear how they can really tell, based on earlier comments about DYS385, but they know more about it than I do.
It is incorrect to differentiate between faster and slower markers when assessing relatedness. The assessment depends on the overall rate. More mutations will be seen on faster markers. However, the rate for FTDNA's 37 markers is higher than for the 43 at RG And DNAH. 41/43
matches (to the ancestral) are very common in well-documented 10-15 generation genealogies with the latter panels. Thus, I would go with a conclusion of relatedness on a 34/37 match back to the beginning of surnames with the faster FTDNA markers.
M True <> wrote:
My name is John Eckersley and I would be grateful to receive people's comments on or interpretation of the following please:
Am I correct in thinking when using the FTDNA hybrid model I should interpret this difference as 1 not 2, in FTDNA terms making us 34/37 = related?
|Re: [DNA] Assistance with Results Interpretation by Robert Stafford <>|