GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266189559


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:19:19 -0600
References: <e0d2d2871002141331w372bd9b0p9d812205a2cc7993@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0d2d2871002141331w372bd9b0p9d812205a2cc7993@mail.gmail.com>


We used to get similar reconstructions from Relative Genetics even as far
back as 2002. They did not match what is a good paper trail very well. They,
of course, caveated their report by stating that it was only one possible
reconstruction. I had redone all of the early genealogy and corrected the
errors of older researchers, so was very confident in the tree.

Interestingly, similar to yours, one branch was rooted with DYS439. The
ancestral was also 13. We had three mutations to 12 and one to 14. We also
triangulated one mutation to 1819 and a second to 1843-1930. We could not
find any other descendents of the third's progenitor to test.

The paper trail is solid for the first two for the dates shown and for the
entire genealogy of the third, whose surname was spelled differently after
1700. Thus, we were left with a purported NPE between families virtually all
of whose descendants were hundreds of miles away from the others based on
the genealogies and censuses.

The second person even had an older mutation on DYS389ii that the others
did not have.

Bob Stafford

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Ewing <> wrote:

>
>
> I have figured out what mutations were used by Anatole's program to define
> the branch points between and within the first two of the four main branches
> Anatole identified for us. I have made a chart somewhat similar to the big
> phylogeny chart I shared previously with the branches exactly as Anatole's
> program drew them, but I have added labels showing the mutations. This
> diagram is available at
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/431003/EwingTreeByAnatole.pdf
>
>


This thread: