GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268616944
From: Steven Bird <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Percentages of males and females who reproduce -compare to the "one third rule"
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:35:44 -0400
OK, forgetting the "1/3" rule, are you saying that the genetic diversity of a given population (as measured by the variance) is not reduced by things such as founder's effects, where one male sires many descendant offspring (such as the Ui Neill)? If so, then you are also saying (and please correct me if I am mistaken) that population history is irrelevant when calculating a coalescent? That would suggest that the germ line mutation rate is in fact correct for estimating the time to the coalescent and there is no need to be concerned about reduced diversity due to founder's effects. This is assuming of course that the germ line rate is in fact correctly estimated for each locus of the Y.
This is helpful, thanks for your response.
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:22:20 -0600
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Percentages of males and females who reproduce - compare to the "one third rule"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Bird" <>
> > This has really started me thinking about the basis for the 1/3 rule.
> > [[ Only basis for any 1/3 "rule", if you want to call it such, is error.
> > Real or effective population size does not enter the variance expected
> > value determinations. This is not to say that children per couple and
> > breeding fraction at any one time, etc. may not be correct numbers? They
> > are just not relevant to variance expected values of any kind, although it
> > indirectly feeds into the distribution (statistical confidence intervals)
> > of variance about its expected values.]]
> 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
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.