GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-12 > 1134246956
From: "Terry Barton" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] At last --Some Results from the Irish Study - Let's Put them all in one place!
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:56 -0500
John, I don't know. But, unfortunately, I managed to create a third
interpretation, as I said I was using the Sorenson convention (10+1=11) and
then put down the DNA version (10+2=12). I just changed my table to report
11, presumedly consistent with Sorenson.
I defer to the List for the correct interpretation at DYS461. I went with
Dean McGee's interpretation. Does anyone have a clear insight on this?
If we can't agree on how to report it, I'll pull the IMH off the table.
From Dean's earlier posting:
"I notice that DYS461 has a value of 10. I suspect that we must add 2 to
this to meet FTDNA and DNAH conventions and add 1 for SMGF.
SMGF, http://smgf.org/marker_details.html#DYS461 shows a significant modal
value of 11 for this marker. This corresponds to 12 for FTDNA. Nearly all
the McGee results have 12 for DYS461."
I see that my Barton R1b results are mostly 11, with 12 second and a
smattering of 10s.
Best regards, Terry
From: John S Walden [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] At last --Some Results from the Irish Study - Let's
Put them all in one place!
On 12/10/05, Terry Barton <> wrote:
I grabbed Dean McGee's interpretation of the IMH
And the IMH in the Irish Study paper has DYS461 as a 10
so we now have two IMH haplotypes?