GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268582898


From: "Terry Barton" <>
Subject: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrong things for Genealogy?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:08:18 -0400
References: <mailman.421.1268553642.27272.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.421.1268553642.27272.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


I've been thinking about the idea of looking at "slow" markers to evaluate
shared ancestry - even back "1000" years as some of the big geographic
projects are working on, while using "fast" markers for evaluating
"branching" within the geentic family.

Does anyone have a systematic approach to which markers would be slow and
which fast? My inclination would be to include only these markers as "fast"
from the first 67: 464, 724 (CDY), 570 and 557. (If we used all of the
FTDNA "red markers", we'd also include 385, 439, 458, 449, 456, 576 and some
more from 38-67)

If someone has already worked this "Two Stage" analysis out - I'd be happy
to use their approach. Or - is anyone interested in working with me
"off-line" on this?

Best Regards,
Terry Barton


From: "Terry Barton" <>

Hi John. I could live with your two new panels concept - one fast and one
slow. It's a simpler solution for FTDNA to implement than what I proposed.
As many initiatives as FTDNA have going, more y-str needs to be something
they can do without using all of their focus.

I agree that rationalizing advanced markers into panels, offering them in
the standard section, and including them in TiP would increase advanced
marker sales.

I would hope to see some "fast" markers that aren't already tested at FTDNA
- as I've already tried the "DNA Fingerprint" ones and they weren't fast for
us. And - unless "Family Finder" solves our branching challenges - I am
still thinking that we will ultimately need "200" markers to reconstruct
families where paper trails don't exist.



This thread: