GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265173951


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:12:31 -0700
References: <774081.63014.qm@web111315.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Maddi" <>
>
> I think you meant to type null 425. [[Yes]] 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?

The cluster was compared to its upstream U106 age estimates which run, if I
remember correctly, closer to 4000 years.

L48 would the intermediate I guess, but again we're going to get into the
statistical uncertainties for the closer ages. As we increasingly try to
make age estimates within the more bushy parts of the y tree, it will be
more and more difficult to get meaningful age differences for the closely
spaced nodes.

Ken



This thread: