GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-12 > 1134254387
From: "Dean McGee" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] At last --Some Results from the Irish Study - Let's Put them all in one place!
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:39:53 -0500
Since most of us are tested with DNAH, RG, or FTDNA, it would probably be
most useful to have the results listed in their convention. I think these
labs agree on all markers except for TAGA-H4 / GATA-H4 but the marker
nomenclature gives the convention. Refer to SMGF standards page:
http://smgf.org/marker_standards.html . Also, if you put DYS461 in SMGF
convention, then you should put DYS19 likewise. The credit should go to the
Moore/McEvoy et al team from TCD, with a notation regarding any deviation
from their published work.
Regarding the IMH, I've created a couple of URLs to search SMGF with
different values of DYS461 and the remaining markers IMH.
There are over 50 exact matches with DYS461=11 and no exact matches with
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Barton [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNA] At last --Some Results from the Irish
> Study - Let's Put them all in one place!
> 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.