Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266220532

From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] every branch?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:55:32 +0100


1. You write:

"I analyze EVERY branch (I do not use the word "cluster"), and every one has
its own margin of error."

But in many posts to me you have insisted that you do NOT analyse every
branch. You said that there are different types of branching and you can not
even know all the branching - nor do you need to, you say. You treat
different types of branching differently, according to your own account.

But it is still fuzzy how you define the different types of branching, and
how you know when it is important or not. You might not need to know all the
branching, but presumably you need to know when you do or don't need to know
all the branching.

2. By the way, it would be less fuzzy to use the word cluster instead of
branch. Your branches are ESTIMATES of branches. You are using STR clusters
and assuming they are branches. I am not saying that this is an unreasonable
estimation in some cases, but there is a difference, and we should use clear
language if we are going to break the circular discussion.

Another term you could use is "apparent branch" for example, which might be
more accurate than cluster, because the term cluster makes no distinction
between cases where there is no obvious proposal concerning branches and
cases where there are some.

Best Regards

This thread: