GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1137101863


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS385 hi - lo?
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:42:52 -0800
References: <E1Ex3OY-0006vH-00@pop-tawny.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <43C68564.80705@sbcglobal.net> <REME20060112161425@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20060112161425@alum.mit.edu>


> John Chandler wrote:

>Al wrote:
>
>
>>should report the low-high order. It is just that those in certain
>>haplogroups may actually be high-low.
>>
>>
>
>When you get right down to it, the choice of which to call "a" and
>which to call "b" was entirely arbitrary, and so using the word
>"order" in this context is a philosophical error.
>

Ah yes, you're right of course because it all depends on the physical
location (I take it) in the YDNA of what is being counted. So, yes,
high-low or low-high or 13-16 or 16-13 can all be wrong as in any of
these cases the number may physically be in the "first" or "next" part
of the DNA section being analyzed (it is not defined clearly). Whew!

>The point is
>that Kittler "created" two separate and independent markers that
>require separate and independent labels, and there is no inherent
>"order" in these labels, any more than there is an inherent order
>for arranging YCAII and DYS438 in a list. In many ways, it would
>be a better arrangement all around to make up two entirely new
>DYS numbers for these two.
>
>
>

This seems to make the most sense overall.

>John Chandler
>
>
>
Al

This thread: