GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268486339


From: Elizabeth Bennett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest inthe wrong things for genealogy?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:18:59 -0300
References: <mailman.407.1268467245.20261.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>,<1DFC7635-01DB-4412-939D-96A9678BB48C@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <1DFC7635-01DB-4412-939D-96A9678BB48C@comcast.net>


I agree that genealogy must not be forgotten. I belong to a large surname project which has samples for a number documented genealogies. There are still samples which unfortunately are closely related which only have 37 marker results but it seems the focus has shiftedSNP testing.
Is Y DNA testing FTDNA's bread and butter business or the gravy? Either way, I think that they should look at the matches page of the FTDNA personal pages. Carrying the genetic distance cumulatively from the 12, 25, 37 marker panels to the 67 discourages someone who has an odd mutation in the 12 or 25 marker panel so could be missing significant matches because they only show a genetic distance of 4 at 37 markers. The number of people who test, have few matches and drop off the radar is totally unknown if they do not post to ysearch. I have 180 exact 12 marker matches, 88 of them no markers above 12. This percentage does not show up in the 25 or 27 marker panels but I wonder if there are other people like my ysearch WSEQD which only shows 4 25 markers matches and no 37 marker ones, whcih are falling through the cracks.
Elizabeth

> From:
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:01:26 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrong things for genealogy?
>
> One extra piece of data should also be listed:
> Negative SNP results should be included for testees in the standardized notation.
>
> Sam Vass
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, Lancaster-Boon wrote:
> >
> > I think many posts have touched on this question. I want to raise it in a clear way. It is being forgotten and put aside too much.
> >
> > First let me say that I have done 23andMe testing and FGS testing, and I continue to be interested in such advances personally. I also appreciate
> > that some people do manage to use autosomal and mitochondrial testing in ways which help genealogy.
> > ......
> >
> > HOWEVER, to come to the point, the fact remains that when genealogists ask me whether such testing can help them I generally say no, and that it is
> > almost always better to spend your money on Y DNA testing: more STR markers, and even (increasingly) SNP testing.
> > ,,,,
> > For genealogy we need:-
> >
> > 1. Short term. More STR markers, and those STR markers to more easily usable in the lrgest possible databases.
> >
> > 2. Long term. The standardization of the use of SNP discovery as a part of genealogy.
> > ....
> > *Admins can not even get a simple tabular listing of advanced STR results, nor any SNP results, for any project from FT DNA, (after how many years?).
> > ....
> > ...we must not forget genealogy and we must not forget how many obvious improvements could be made to the services available for Y DNA.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712959


This thread: