Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266797575

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:12:55 -0500
References: <><018201cab34e$317fa3b0$947eeb10$@org>
In-Reply-To: <018201cab34e$317fa3b0$947eeb10$@org>

Virtually all the labs, including FTDNA, SMGF, and Ancestry, report DYS452

The conversion page at Ysearch does not tell you to convert DYS452 to "low":

It appears, to me, the people creating the problem are the ones entering the
value "low."

But are you telling me FTDNA converted some values to "low" and hasn't converted
them back? I rarely work with this marker, so I wasn't aware of that having

Perhaps we should start a campaign to contact every "low" record we run across
in Ysearch and explain to the person that they need to edit their marker back to
"high." It would take time, but if we all did it, we could eventually "clean
up" the database.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Lawrence Mayka
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:33 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
> We clamored for a resolution of the DYS452 and DYS463
> conversion issue years
> ago. Nothing ever happened. Or rather, the worst happened:
> FTDNA began
> encouraging customers to enter their values without
> conversion, but without
> back-converting the values that were already there.
> It would be easy for me to write off those two markers as
> hopeless, but
> DYS452, at least, turns out to have an distinctive value (27
> or 28 instead
> of the usual 30) in an R-M198 cluster I'm investigating.

This thread: