GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119064819


From: Terry Todd <>
Subject: Re: basing conclusions on a sample of 1
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:20:19 -0500
References: <000001c5738c$c4649930$82459951@default> <032601c573a0$536d70d0$1d78190a@scvwd.gov>
In-Reply-To: <032601c573a0$536d70d0$1d78190a@scvwd.gov>; from rmcmurtry@igc.org on Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:54:48PM -0700


Here's more from our group member.

Can anyone here help?

Thanks,
Terry Todd


On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:54:48PM -0700, Richard McMurtry wrote:
> Dear Alastair,
>
> Thanks for trying, but my two questions have gone unanswered. Could you
> please forward this to someone else in the firm who might be able to provide
> greater clarity?
>
> There are two John Todds on the chart - one 1750-1813 and one 1746-1829. I
> have shown one as possible son of Andrew d 1791 and one as possible son of
> William d 1760/70 because we know that both Andrew and William had sons
> named John. Both of these two Johns have desc that are exact 43 marker
> matches with Jim C, desc of Andrew d 1791 EXCEPT that the desc of John Todd
> 1750-1813 (JZV618) has a 13 and the desc of John Todd 1746-1829 (BRS435) has
> a 12 in marker 461. This is not surprising given that the two Johns are
> probably first cousins.
>
> However, there is dispute over the genealogical evidence and so we are
> trying to use this one marker (461) to tell which of these two is more
> likely the desc of Andrew.
>
> Here are the questions:
>
> Is there anything quantitative that can be said about the relative
> probability that a desc of
> Andrew's son John was a 13 versus a 12 when we only have one sample for a
> proven Andrew desc?
>
> If we were to get a sample from Scott or Jim D, would we be able to say
> anything more
> than we can say with only one sample about the relative probability of
> Andrew being a 13?
>
>
> Richard McMurtry
>
>



This thread: