GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-01 > 1293920469


From: "Brian P. Swann" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Recommendations for DNA testing (Robert Stafford)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 22:21:09 -0000
References: <531334.99838.qm@web161301.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <531334.99838.qm@web161301.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>


I would tend to agree with this strategy below.

We started out testing with DNA Heritage - and although we are converting to
FTDNA, I will still use the 9 additional SGMF markers as necessary.

We have at least one Picton line where DYS461 (only normally available from
SGMF - but also available from FTDNA at an extra $7.20) may yield additional
branch discrimination.

It would certainly make my life easier if these 9 markers were bundled into
the 67 marker test, to make it a 76 marker test package overall. Right now
I have to pay 9 x $7.20, plus a lab transfer cost to get these extra nine
markers tested. Maybe there are commercial reasons for FTDNA not doing
that, it might make it easier to swap test companies.

Best regards

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Sam Eaton
Sent: 01 January 2011 17:51
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Recommendations for DNA testing (Robert Stafford)

Robert,

Your suggestion short changes the ability to to research between one third
and one half of all available yDNA tests. I consider 76 markers, the 67
marker FTDNA test plus the 9 SMGF additional markers to be the proper
standard. Can anyone here tell me why it is good research procedure to
ignore between one third and one half of the available data?

-------------------------------
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

This thread: