GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118961327


From: "gareth.henson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] missing marker
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:35:27 +0100
References: <1a9.39cbd8ff.2fe356f3@aol.com>


Bill

so the database rules should be amended to fit the actual results, not vice
versa!

Gareth

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] missing marker


>
> Ken,
>
> Yes, it is a fairly typical R1b. I believe their database required some
> kind of entry in each field in order to be accepted. If the field was left
> blank, it would be rejected as an error.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------------
> In a message dated 6/16/2005 6:20:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> Without some clear explanation, the assignment of a "24" for a missing
> marker seems weird to say the least. What are they guessing if the
marker
> is missing? Sounds like they are inventing. I suppose the rest of the
> haplotype looks rather R1b so Atlantic modal "24" is invented to fill the
> hole? But to what end or purpose? Same goes for DYs439 --- why invent a
> value if no value exists or can be measured?



This thread: