On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:14:54 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > taf wrote: > > Well if the claim is to be taken seriously it could mean that they could > actually triangulate and test several lines descended from siblings in > several generations. If several sons of Robert have male lines still > existing, it would show that Robert almost certainly did. If Robert also > had siblings himself with surviving male lines, and these could be shown > NOT to have it... that would be pretty convincing. This press release reported the latter, but make it clear they did not do the former - Arthur Steward has a mutation not found in the descendants of Robert's brothers, but there are no other samples from the branch between Robert and Arthur - this may be a Arthur Stewart descent marker, rather than being a Robert III descent marker. > And of course this should involve a good SNP marker that does not jump > back and forth. Given how nonspecific the language is in the press release, it could be a STR 'mutation' and not an SNP, but as you say, reversion is always an issue with either. taf