GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213558049


From: Beth Long <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] How could we tell?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BEFD3395-3469-4FAC-B01E-963B8DD98BB7@verizon.net>


Hi Bill,

Let me see if I understand what you are saying...

Is it that somehow the pedigrees you submitted got linked to the wrong individuals?

Just to go through the process; there should be a kit number or other identifier associated with each individual test taker. Since I'm not familiar with SMGF, is this number on the kit when you get it, or is it generated when the kit is received by the lab?

Is the pedigree submitted electronically later, or on paper, along with the kit itself?

If on paper (and multiple kits were sent in together), was each kit and pedigree bagged separately, or?

I would like to understand exactly what went wrong and what in the submisson process allowed it to happen.

I frequently send large batches of kits to FTDNA, each bagged in a small plastic ziplock with the three bar-coded vials plus a sheet which repeats the name and kit number on it.

Beth Long



Bill Howard <> wrote:
The facts are all gathered. It has been brought to SMGF's attention
(at least two times to three different people there) and they have not
gotten back to me about what went wrong. No sense in retesting because
they will spot that the pedigree information is the same that was sent
to them earlier, and I don't want to fake it with false information as
some others have suggested.
I have trusted, then questioned, but have received no verification......
I guess you get what you pay for!
- Bye from Bill Howard

On Jun 15, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:

> Most of the pedigrees in the database are for people still living,
> so I don't know what that has to do with the situation. However, we
> know that occasionally immediate family members don't match. If you
> think the results are wrong, retest. Don't cast aspersions about an
> organization before gathering your facts.
>
> It should have been clear from the context that I knew they were
> not just one-marker mismatches.
>
> Bob Stafford
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Howard wrote:
> Definitely not. The pedigrees are for people now living!
> I agree with your second sentence, but it does not apply here.
> These are NOT one marker mismatches. They are from completely
> different sets.
> That lends much credence to my contention that SGMF mixed up either
> the samples or the pedigrees.
> - Bye from Bill Howard
>
> On Jun 15, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:
>
>> I would say that two sample switches in one group is much more
>> unlikely. Many people have tested at both SMGF and other firms with
>> matching results. There have been a few mismatches on one marker
>> reported. Usually, it was found to be the other firm. Thus, it is
>> much more likely that the pedigree is wrong.
>>
>> Bob Stafford
>>
>> Bill Howard wrote:
>> Not matching one doesn't prove a mistake, but not matching two out of
>> ten seems most suspicious......
>> - Bye from Bill Howard
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> Not matching a pedigree doesn't prove a mistake. Afterall, that is
>>> why we are testing. You need to have them retested elsewhere to be
>>> sure.
>>>
>>> Bob Stafford
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Howard wrote:
>>> Just a short note about my experience at SMGF - I sent in 10 samples
>>> in August 2005 and the results were not posted for more than a year.
>>> Some, but not all could later be identified on their web site.
>>> However, they made bad mistakes on two of the samples, due, I think,
>>> to sample switches, and I made many phone calls to people named
>>> Angela, Anna, and Karen. The pedigree did not match the
>>> relationships
>>> indicated by the test. My phone calls were taken with courtesy and I
>>> was told to wait. I waited and waited and waited. More phone
>>> calls...... nothing done although I told them exactly what was wrong
>>> and they all promised to look into it. Yes, I could have paid money
>>> to
>>> get the results, but if the samples had been switched, it would not
>>> have done any good.
>>> That's a 20% error rate in my book.
>>> - Bye from Bill Howard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is hard to tell what the lab error rate is, since most errors
>>>> are
>>>> not reported publically. However, I suspect there are a lot more
>>>> than people think. I have seen about 20 posts about errors here and
>>>> on Genforum. I have also private reports from people about errors.
>>>> One big problem seems to be clerical errors. I am not clear where
>>>> they occur, unless the firms post results to their web sites
>>>> manually.
>>>>
>>>> There are probably many actual lab errors on single markers that
>>>> have not been discovered. They would probably not arouse suspicion
>>>> and would be discovered only if the person retested. DYS464 seems
>>>> to
>>>> be a big problem, because the relative peak heights are used. I
>>>> think it is a good idea to retest at www.smgf.org, if there is a
>>>> mutation from the ancestral haplotype. It is a worthwhile project
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> One of the biggest problems, according to a person who works at a
>>>> lab, is sample switches, often on just one panel. I have seen
>>>> several cases posted. For people working within a documented
>>>> genealogy, they immediate arouse suspicion. However, a loner might
>>>> get bad results and never know.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Stafford
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
>>> "Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
>>> the body of the message
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
>>> the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>> "History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
>> "Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
>> the body of the message
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
>> the body of the message
>
>
>
> "History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
> "Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message



"History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
"Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message




This thread: