Sandy, When I made that comparison, I did it for a group of Hamiltons who had been tested at 37 and 67 markers. At the time I was a bit more naive than I am now about the differences you can get if you go away from the familiar 37 marker set, so you are probably right that I was too hasty in making that statement a couple of years ago. Yes, you may get a different result because the marker comparisons will be different. My approach correlates the whole string. Since new marker values are added, the results are expected to differ. That's why I have confined virtually all my analysis to 37 markers where I know what's going on. The RCC time scale is calibrated on 37 markers, too. It will surely be different at 67 and again at 111. But not enough pedigrees are available to do an independent RCC calibration at those higher DYS sites. That's also why I insist on studying only the SAME DYS sequence for all 37 haplotypes. I don't need to check your calculations. You got what I expected. However, send me an Excel file with the entries in separate columns and I will take a look at what you got. The URL you gave lists them in a csv format that is hard to work with. Finally, take a look at the following two trees. One was done on a set of 37 markers and the other on a set of 67 markers, BOTH FOR THE SAME SETS of testees. You will see that they are different in detail but they show many overall similarities. http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/CrispinCousins37.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/CrispinCousins67.pdf And no, I don't know in detail if you have done anything wrong, but I am not surprised at what you found. I think that a 67 and 111 marker set will more closely define modern clusters, but I am not convinced that it will be genetically useful in tracing mutations on genetic time scales back thousands of years, mainly because the new markers have been picked to give better insight into the genealogical time intervals, but that's just an intelligent hunch on my part. So send me the delineated file and I will take a crack at it. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > A question for Bill: > > In the section 'Methods--Part I : Forming the RCC Matrix' of your first > paper, you say > > 'Results from 67 markers can also be used; they are virtually identical to > the results using 37 markers.' > > I've taken the 62 111-marker M222 results I have on file, and calculated RCC > values between Ewing kit number 26605, and the remaining 61 testees. I > calculated RCC's separately over 37, 67 and 111 markers. The results can be > seen at > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/RCCFILE.csv > > > At this stage I'm working on the assumption that I have done something > wrong, because the results I get vary dramatically depending on whether you > use 37, 67 or 111 markers. A case in point is the comparison between Ewing > 26065 and Paterson 118913. The results I get are > > 37 markers RCC = 12.7 > 67 markers RCC = 32.2 > 111 markers RCC = 59.2 > > Are you able to check my calculations? I can send you my file of the > 111-marker results if you have difficulty extracting them from the M222 > site. > > > Sandy > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message