GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118964559


From: "Joe Fox" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] missing marker
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:40:01 -0700
References: <1a9.39cbd8ff.2fe356f3@aol.com>


Bill

This is the break I've been waiting for. I have 5 Foxes who have the null
result at DYS439. There are also 9 Littles, 2 Atkins and one Vines that I
know of that have had this experience. Yes, FTDNA reports a value of 12
since that fits their correlations but it is really a null value and is very
significant. We have recently found that the Sorenson lab does not get this
result since they use a different primer. Would like to exchange
information with you off-list.

This is highly significant and probably is the result of an SNP next to the
marker.

Joe Fox
Lafayette, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:28 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: