Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267324338

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: [DNA] the growing problem of coincidental matches
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:32:18 -0500
References: <> <169E2F3FB6114E128B750C6706654050@anatoldesktop><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

I would say you can substantiate your connection to a family with 67 markers,
even in R1b. The reason to "max out" ones markers is to identify and separate
lines within families, though in many cases, the currently available markers are
still not enough to do so. The fact is that the more markers you test, the more
precise you can be about relationships, so if you can afford to test to the
limit, please do so.

I've no doubt we all welcome the prospect that the current TV series using
genetic genealogy ("Faces of America" on PBS and the upcoming "Who do you think
you are?" on NBC) will reduce the public's fear of being tested and stimulate
them to be tested, but as the Y-DNA STR database gets larger, the problem of
coincidental matches is going to increase, especially in R1b. Please do
consider 37 markers as minimal for R1b's and 67 markers as standard. And please
press at least one member of each identified family to be deep SNP tested.

We all need to be reminded that there is at least one known case of a 60/67 STR
match in R1b where SNP testing revealed the individuals were in different
subclades. Does anyone know of any other such cases of convergence?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Vince Tilroe
> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:57 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] L21 and U106 Deep Clade Results
> Absolutely!
> In some cases even 67 markers may not be enough, and some surname
> project administrators are even recommending that their R1b1b2 members
> should "max-out" their markers from FTDNA's advanced panels if at all
> possible.
> Vince Tilroe
> Margaret Jordan wrote:
> > Thanks to all for their help with my L21 and U106 query.
> >
> > So, a Deep Clade test for R1b1b2 people is recommended, in order to
> > identify the correct subclade first and 67 markers are
> > needed, as well, to identify close matches within that subclade.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Margaret

This thread: