GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268599353
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrongthings for Genealogy?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:42:33 +0100
Another sub-section to the discussion topic "what can we do more of and
better with Y DNA" opens up with this posting!
On the subject of fast versus slow, I think it is worth pointing out that
what we call fast is often just "complex". Depending upon how you define it,
DYS464 for example does not necessarily mutate more often than many other
markers, but it can mutate in more ways, which are harder to interpret.
In this respect this raises the old question of partial repeat reporting, as
well as the repoting of the mini SNPs associated with DYS464, DYF399 etc.
These are extremely messy for TMRCA calculations and for IT, but they could
be extremely useful for genealogy.
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
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.
|[DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrongthings for Genealogy? by "Lancaster-Boon" <>|