GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268588610


From: "Tim Janzen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest inthewrong things for Genealogy?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:43:30 -0700
In-Reply-To: <229BEF456B5645388ED4D7E774DAD31A@TERRYSHUTTLE>


Dear Terry,
You might want to look at this message for a listing of markers in
order of their mutation rates:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-06/12135734
83. There was also a thread on this topic beginning on March 31, 2009 and
subsequent days that you might want to review for additional background. To
see this thread simply go to
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-03 and
scroll to the bottom of the messages to see the start of the thread and go
to the top of the messages at
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-04 to see
the end of the thread.
Sincerely,
Tim Janzen

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Terry Barton
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:08 AM
To:
Subject: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrong
things for Genealogy?

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)

Best Regards,
Terry Barton



This thread: