Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
John,
False positives are such a disappointment, though. Perhaps you could persuade participants to choose a higher resolution test in the beginning--tell them it is cheaper in the long run, because more markers are almost always needed and upgrades are the expensive way of getting them.
Several of my cousins, who are participating in a Y-chromosome study at Relative Genetics, recently took the 43 marker test; I have been surprised by how many people with different surnames they appear to match at a lower resolution. A Spencer cousin who is R1b (which represents 80% of the western European population) has a number of apparent matches to men in RG's database with different surnames:
one at 24/26
one at 24/25
four at 11/12
one at 23/26
one at 9/10
My Britton cousins belong to I1a, a much smaller Haplogroup; however, even there we have a 10/10 match, a 23/26 match, a 27/30 match, and a 17/20 match to men with different surnames.
The only true match is 42/43 to another Britton, and we knew from court records that he was related before we joined the study. The common ancestor was born c 1672/3.
I suspect that as databases grow, meaningless matches will become an even greater problem, making higher resolution tests a necessity.
Lindsey
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/plantagenet/messages/1487.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|