GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119549891


From: Margaret Smith <>
Subject: Turnaround time - update
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:04:51 -0600
References: <200506231729.j5NHTUCN022116@lists5.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200506231729.j5NHTUCN022116@lists5.rootsweb.com>


Bennett Greenspan sent an explanation for the delay in assigning a
haplogroup:

"The entire issue is that your haplogroup is within the 1-2% of samples
that don't resolve nicely and the test has to be run by hand (one sample
for one test versus the plates that we send to for mass SNP testing for
our standard work. I have been through this with Bonnie and a colleague
of hers and the best way for us to solve this in the long run is to
offer a sort of deep SNP process that will provide a results despite the
back mutation issues that may have affected your sample."

I asked him and am now asking the list:

Does this mean that the haplotype is rare enough for matches to be more
meaningful in a genealogical sense than is usual for mtDNA results?
There are 3 of us with the same results on those markers that are
compared to the CRS by FTDNA. Should we be looking for a common maternal
ancestor in genealogical time, even though as far back as we have each
gotten we haven't found one as yet? (I'm not sure about the other two,
but I only know 5 generations, with a possible 6th identified, in that
line.)

Note: I'm copying the two matches on this email, just in case they
aren't keeping up with this list.

Margaret Lindsey Smith



This thread: