GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1137160751


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS385 hi - lo?
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 05:59:11 -0800
References: <e8.232eb495.30f889da@cs.com>
In-Reply-To: <e8.232eb495.30f889da@cs.com>


> wrote:

>In a message dated 1/12/2006 4:02:03 PM Central Standard Time,
> writes:
>
>
>>Maybe this group is all there is to generate the "standard" for this
>>marker, that others will adopt and follow? I hope so ... someone need to
>>do it eventually and better now than never ...
>>
>>
>
>Relative Genetics called for the adoption of NIST nomeclature several years
>ago. However, they received no support from this list. They were, instead,
>heavily criticized by some on this list for not changing from NIST to FTDNA on
>Y-GATA-H4, even though RG was the first to use the marker and had thousands of
>entries in their database..
>
>RG has quit using the genotype method recommended by ISGF and used by SMGF
>for duplicate markers in favor of the a,b method used by FTDNA. Thus, you are
>fighting an uphill battle to introduce ISGF nomenclature to genealogy. Whatever
>FTDNA does determines the standards in the genealogical market.
>
>Bob Stafford
>
>

Well, I hope that "better" (kind of a relative term) procedures or
methods resulting in less confusion will help everyone ...


This thread: