GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265410347
From: "Ron" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] deletions [was Re: FTDNA admits to errors inmanymtDNAsequences]
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:52:27 -0600
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:01:05 -0500, Bill complains:
> Ron, you amaze me sometimes. You brought up this 516 transversion off list,
> after which I pointed out that two K Project members have it and that I had long ago
> discussed it with the proper people at FTDNA, and now you thank Mannis and Ian!
> It has nothing to do with your problem with the insertions, so why mention it at all?
Bill, there's no problem with having a transversion at np 516, and I never indicated a problem. I was merely indicating that the stretch of DNA presented the same problem as the other 38 sequences (one with a CACA insertion sandwiched between the two C's that follow the micro-STR). Mannis replied 19 minutes before I got your email (of which you also received from him), and Ian indicated even earlier that this sequence was on his list (I didn't know this when I discovered it this morning and emailed you all).
Anyways, I was thanking Mannis for the part of the reply that I put in quotes: "PLUS 524insCACA; the latter of course should have been 524insACAC," not for pointing out the transversion before you did so.
For someone who gets upset over nothing, you should rather be directing your disappointment with Thomas for misrepresenting and covering up the issue of erroneous mutation lists and FASTA sequences. As everyone should know by now, differences in nomenclature is not the issue we've been discussing.