GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265169616
From: Michael Maddi <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
But that 3000 years for U106 with null 435 seems somewhat younger than the
age of all of U106
I think you meant to type null 425. That cluster is L48+ as proven by a dozen or more L48+ results for cluster members.
So the age of the cluster should be compared to L48 (downstream of U106), instead of U106. What is the estimate for the age of L48?
|Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster by Michael Maddi <>|