You are correct that this Donnachaidh McConnachie group because of the McConkey df85+ & df97- and the McConchie df85+ could be considered firmly df85+ df97-; additionally, I do believe the prediction because of cluster for the others to be df97- is a good prediction. With the testing, however, the two only confirmed are McConkey and Mac Adam. With the McConnachie (McConchie 173398) the df85 was ordered to confirm that group since there are several other McCs slated into that group and we wanted to make certain even though the genetic distance within this particular group is rather close. We did the same with the other M222 McConnachie (variously spelled) groups and clustered Duncan M222+ even though the GD w/Duncan is also close; but the GD among the other McConnachie group isn't so close...there is diversity in haplotypes there, and at some markers that are slower in mutating than the majority. With all of these various snps being so new to us, and for most without signature in terms of haplotype (df85 among them since it is so close to the R-M222 modal), the investment to make certain is a good investment. Susan Hedeen On 12/9/2013 7:35 PM, Lawrence Dill wrote: > McConkey 84366 is DF85 positive and DF97 negative. > The following people are tested DF85 positive. They are > also projected to be DF97 negative because they are in > the same cluster with McConkey 84366. > McConchie 173398 > Shazell 194537 > Dill 73271 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >