GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266075997


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:46:37 -0600
References: <1197787204.2554981265915596096.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <1197787204.2554981265915596096.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


David,

I like the relationship charts and wish more people would put them on their
sites. It is something that really enlightened non-technical members (almost
all) in my project. It became a chore when they were not generated
automatically.

For those with FTM (at least the older versions) I use this method. I enter
the male lineages of project members. FTM allows 3 different colors
according to sex. More colors actually make it confusing.

I mark each participant and ancestor who has the ancesstral haplotype (known
by pass-through) as male. I mark the ancestors whose haplotypes have been
determined (by triangulation or pass-through) as female. I mark those whose
haplotype has not been determined as ?.

I enter the mutation that each carries as a fact. If it is uncertain, I add
a ? to the possible mutation.

When printing out the chart, I print it to tabloid to try to get it on one
page. I then crop it with Acrobat.

Bob Stafford



On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:13 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> >From: David Ewing < >
> >
> again here. What I need help understanding is why I cannot make our data
> square with the expectation that back and parallel mutations should not be a
> significant factor in relatively shallow lineages.
>
>
>


This thread: