GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127951905


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20050928172139.93456.qmail@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


It is clearly an error on someone's part.

Bob Stafford

Jim T <> wrote:
Rounding of partials doesn't appear to apply in my case.

FTDNA said my DYS464 = 15, 15, 15, 17
DNA-F said my DYS464 = 15, 15, 17, 17

There is no sign of partials in the extended DYS464
electropherogram that DNA-Fingerprint sent me.

Jim T

> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Stafford
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464,
> DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
>
> In some earlier posts, people indicated that FTDNA rounds
> partials. It would be a good idea to contact them about this
> and find out exactly what they do, since it would affect
> matches with SMGF and comparisons with other firms.
>
> Bob Stafford
>
> David F Reynolds wrote:
> It is pretty easy to see why "different" results were reported
> for me.



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx



This thread: