GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-07 > 1184197814
From: "David Wilson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New mtDNA FGS results -- H4a1a
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:50:14 -0700
Yes, FTDNA reported the results as H4a1a. There is at least one other
member of the H4 subclade project with that designation as well. I know what
you mean about their seeming caution in H1. My own FGS was classified H1 by
FTDNA though it probably deserves an asterisk. There are downstream clades
in which I am not numbered.
I knew as soon as I mentioned mitomap that I was inviting comment about
inexact comparisons. You are correct that nothing in the mitomap chart
invites classification of the sort I was discussing. But I did note that
10044 seems to show up in a couple of different places in the H4 clump, and
I thought the situation invited further analysis.
On 7/11/2007 4:32:27 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 7/11/2007 3:09:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, .
> > FTDNA today reported to me the full genome results on my
> father's mtDNA. He
> > and his matrilineal ancestors were H4a1a.
> Just a couple of quick comments. First of all, did FTDNA go all the way to
> H4a1a? I've
> seen several cases recently where FTDNA seemed ultra-conservative in
> subclade labels, e.g calling someone H1 when even by their own H subclade
> test she would be H1a1.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007
|Re: [DNA] New mtDNA FGS results -- H4a1a by "David Wilson" <>|