GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266431616


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] "counting mutations" versus "GD from the modal"
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:36 +0100


Dear Sasson

Thanks for your efforts, but I am not sure we are there yet.

In effect what this is saying is that the answer to the question "when must
sub-clusters be calculated seperately" is that this is in the cases where
sub-clusters must be calculated seperately.

...or that is my possibly faulty understanding of it.

Best Regards
Andrew

===
From: Sasson Margaliot <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "counting mutations" versus "GD from the modal"
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:05:31 +0200
References: <DD6ED800514C43108F8FA10196306F0D@PC>
In-Reply-To: <DD6ED800514C43108F8FA10196306F0D@PC>

I think I can help with the definition of "Common Ancestor". In everyday
English, a "common ancestor" for a set X of individuals, is someone who
simply is an ancestor common to all members of X.

[snip]

Bottom line: a "Common Ancestor" is the founder of such a sub-cluster that
just has to be calculated separately. By the way, once these "significant,
prominent" sub-clusters are already found, the verification of their
"regularity" is relatively straightforward.

I would rather call Anatole's "Common ancestors" "Founding Fathers". It's
not unusual for one of the "Founding Fathers" of X to turn out to be an
ancestor of all others.


This thread: