GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-10 > 1128153183


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] More S21 Results
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 00:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1ELa5Q-00072l-00@pop-canoe.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


David:

If I can release the data I have then there will be more S21+ haplotypes to explore for clues. Right now we "suffer" from a woeful lack of hard data. This is in the process of changing. I agree that we need to be able to test specific hypotheses that are supported by the evidence. I think I see a few patterns emerging, but they may be an illusion occasioned by small sample sizes.

David Faux.

David Wilson <> wrote:
I modestly suggest that we keep an eye on DYS439 as well. I have a few
candidates for S21+ status in the Wilson project who show 439=11 in addition
to some of the markers Ken points out. It's hard to see this in the data
table at the moment because it is sorted in a way that separates some of the
haplotypes that I am now thinking ought to be located near one another.

I'll see if I can persuade some of these guys to spring for the S21 test.

I agree with Ken that there is an apparent cluster of 390=23, 447=24,
464=15-16-17-18 and H4=10 that makes a pretty good first filter for sorting
out likely S21s. Ken and David, take a look at the so-called Virginia group
of Lovelaces (the 10 haplotypes denoted by blue bars) on this page:
http://dna.satmel.com/results.html I think it is just an accident that
458=16 in this group. I don't see that value predominating in haplotypes
from other surnames that pass the basic filter test.

David W.


This thread: