GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-11 > 1132417340
From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Verification of JChandler's response
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:22:20 -0500
I shouldn't be taking the time for this, but . ..
> I got an email from a lady who indeed said that I was put on "SNP
> hold" and that after looking at it again and with additional data
> pouring in, they "had become confident of putting me in R1a".
> Translated (it seems to me): A supervisor looked at the number of
> standard deviations (or whatever measure they use) away from the two
> nearest candidates (possibly adding in my data to each) and decided to
> change the protocol to a newer relaxed (cheaper) measure and voila.
I think, to be fair to FTDNA, what you have speculated in your
"translation" is not the way it works. The information you've given
from them confirms my initial guess: your R1a haplotype initially wasn't
a close enough match to anyone who had been SNP tested, that they could
predict you to be R1a. And then, with the additional data pouring in
(good descriptive phrase), they did find some R1a haplotypes who were
recently SNP tested before you got to the point of SNP testing, whose
haplotypes were close enough in genetic distance to your haplotype that
you could safely be predicted to be R1a. I hope this is clear.
In no way does the sequence of events you've described imply any change
of protocol to a more relaxed, cheaper method. Why would they do that
for YOU, as if you were some special case? This kind of thing happens
constantly, and among their tens of thousands of test subjects, there
should be nothing about yours that would call for any change in protocol.