Generally Ancestry is around 10% lower in total cM count on average than you would see on GEDMatch - but this will depend on your GEDMatch settings of course and will probably change depending on the individual kit. The reason is the algorithm which Ancestry uses. It tries to take account of pile up regions and does some sort of statistical phasing. I am not sure anyone knows exactly how it works. Often they will show more segments than say GEDMatch because they remove pileup regions and this causes longer match segments to be broken in some cases. The worst example of this is for parent/child where there should really only be 22 shared segments (or perhaps a few more) but ancestry can show much higher numbers. If you run exactly the same raw DNA through 23andMe and FTDNA then you are also likely to see a different result because of the algorithms they use. Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon Locations: England, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia On 28/12/2015 14:58, Patti Easton via wrote: > Good Day- > > > > Can someone explain to me why there is a significant variation in cM match > amounts from Ancestry to gedmatch, when it is the same Ancestry kit that was > uploaded to gedmatch? For instance, I have a match that shows 34cM and 3 > segments on Ancestry, but records as 46.3 cM on 3 segments on gedmatch. > Granted it is a small match, but that is a variance of 12 cM, more than 25%. > If this is how it reports, does the variance % decrease for larger matches? > > > > Thank you! > > Regards, > > Patti Easton > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Patti, The raw DNA data from each of the 3 companies is compatible. The algorithms 23andMe, FTDNA and GEDmatch use (using data from any company) result in almost identical Matches and shared segments - only slight deviations, occasionally. The big picture is that they are all the same. However, AncestryDNA has a significantly different system. We have found some large shared segments and Matches that AncestryDNA doesn't report; and a LOT of AncestryDNA Matches that are based on relatively small (5-7cM) segments that most of us find are IBS, but AncestryDNA insists are valid based on their "population" phasing. For me, I rely on shared segments from the other companies; and use AncestryDNA Matches and shared segments when there is no other data - a recognize that the data may not be compatible. The AncestryDNA Trees, Hints, etc are helpful. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Dec 28, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Patti Easton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Good Day- > > > > Can someone explain to me why there is a significant variation in cM match > amounts from Ancestry to gedmatch, when it is the same Ancestry kit that was > uploaded to gedmatch? For instance, I have a match that shows 34cM and 3 > segments on Ancestry, but records as 46.3 cM on 3 segments on gedmatch. > Granted it is a small match, but that is a variance of 12 cM, more than 25%. > If this is how it reports, does the variance % decrease for larger matches? > > > > Thank you! > > Regards, > > Patti Easton > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello List, Big Y -  $50   Expires 1/3/2016 at 11:59PM CT. Y37,Y67 or Y111 - $ 20  Expires 1/3/2016 at 11:59PM CT. Contact me via e-mail. Happy new year to all ! Best regards, Costa - -----------------------------------------------------Mail.be, WebMail and Virtual Officehttp://www.mail.be

Thank you so much! I knew someone here would have an answer. I appreciate the help. Regards, Patti -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jon Masterson via Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:47 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Variation in cM match amounts Generally Ancestry is around 10% lower in total cM count on average than you would see on GEDMatch - but this will depend on your GEDMatch settings of course and will probably change depending on the individual kit. The reason is the algorithm which Ancestry uses. It tries to take account of pile up regions and does some sort of statistical phasing. I am not sure anyone knows exactly how it works. Often they will show more segments than say GEDMatch because they remove pileup regions and this causes longer match segments to be broken in some cases. The worst example of this is for parent/child where there should really only be 22 shared segments (or perhaps a few more) but ancestry can show much higher numbers. If you run exactly the same raw DNA through 23andMe and FTDNA then you are also likely to see a different result because of the algorithms they use. Jon Masterson Wales UK, Florida US jon@scruffyduck.co.uk Gedmatch: A488362, M938817 Surnames: Cannon, Coulter, Clinton, Dryman, Lance, Mabey, Pryor, Wrixon Locations: England, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia On 28/12/2015 14:58, Patti Easton via wrote: > Good Day- > > > > Can someone explain to me why there is a significant variation in cM > match amounts from Ancestry to gedmatch, when it is the same Ancestry > kit that was uploaded to gedmatch? For instance, I have a match that > shows 34cM and 3 segments on Ancestry, but records as 46.3 cM on 3 segments on gedmatch. > Granted it is a small match, but that is a variance of 12 cM, more than 25%. > If this is how it reports, does the variance % decrease for larger matches? > > > > Thank you! > > Regards, > > Patti Easton > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Patti I pretty much agree with Jim and Jon. There can be a few different reasons for a difference in cM. When Dna is tested there will often be some no-calls and minor errors, the various comparison sites use different criteria to define how many no-calls and minor errors can be included in a segment and it to still be called a match, this often affects segment length, start and stop points. At present it looks like Ancestry.com and Ftdna use fairly strict criteria with 23andme being a bit more relaxed with Gedmatch being the most relaxed. Another issues is that when Dna is tested it is broken down into tiny segments and then the raw data is reassembled by using a mapping standard called a build. The older Build is Build 36 and the newer standard is Build 37. The difference in the Builds can cause some differences in reported matches. I understand that Gedmatch and Ftdna are still using build 36 while 23andme uses build 37 at present we do not know the internal workings of the Ancestry.com software. (Using either build standard works OK but will report the match in a slightly different position and possibly a slight size difference) RPaine -----Original Message----- From: Patti Easton via Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 6:58 AM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Variation in cM match amounts Good Day- Can someone explain to me why there is a significant variation in cM match amounts from Ancestry to gedmatch, when it is the same Ancestry kit that was uploaded to gedmatch? For instance, I have a match that shows 34cM and 3 segments on Ancestry, but records as 46.3 cM on 3 segments on gedmatch. Granted it is a small match, but that is a variance of 12 cM, more than 25%. If this is how it reports, does the variance % decrease for larger matches? Thank you! Regards, Patti Easton ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Good Day- Can someone explain to me why there is a significant variation in cM match amounts from Ancestry to gedmatch, when it is the same Ancestry kit that was uploaded to gedmatch? For instance, I have a match that shows 34cM and 3 segments on Ancestry, but records as 46.3 cM on 3 segments on gedmatch. Granted it is a small match, but that is a variance of 12 cM, more than 25%. If this is how it reports, does the variance % decrease for larger matches? Thank you! Regards, Patti Easton

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Linda Reid via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I recently saw a posting (somewhere) that identified how much of a > parent's DNA was passed on if there were multiple children. A single > child will have 50% of a parent's DNA. If there are 2 children something > in the range of 73-75% of the parent's DNA has been passed on. This > increases to over 90% if there are 4 children. Can anyone give me the > figures that were published and the source? Thanks. The source is pure logic. If we ignore the X-Y dimorphism, exactly 1/2 of a parent's DNA is passed on to any given child, and, by the same token, the probability is exactly 1/2 that any particular bit of DNA is passed on to a specific child. Thus, the probability that a particular bit of DNA is *not* passed on to any of N children is 2^-N. That is, the expected total amount passed on is successively 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, and so on. However, the range of possible total passed on to two or more children is always 50% to 100%, regardless of how many there are (that is, if more than one, and counting identical twins as just one per pair). What happens as more children are added is that the likelihood of 50% total coverage falls while the likelihood of 100% coverage rises. John Chandler

I forgot the Y series. They follow in frequency right after PF. On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, R-U198 is included. The SNP names FTDNA uses to mark the R1b > branches include those that begin with Z, FGC, A, CTS, S, L, PF, F, P, ZP, > ZS, PH, U, M, MC, PAGES, pretty much in that order. I probably missed > something. > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Loretta Layman <lynneage@h-o-l.com> > wrote: > >> Do the 1100 unique branches now include R-U198? >> >> Loretta Lynn Layman >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike W via >> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 6:46 PM >> To: DNA Rootsweb >> Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b "Gateway" Project update and request >> >> We've now passed the 8700 membership mark for the R1b project so we've >> grown >> by 2600 people this year. >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background >> >> We also have seen improved resolution on the R1b formalized trees. ISOGG >> now lists over 500 unique branches and FTDNA lists over 1100. Partly this >> is >> due to the large number of new SNP packs FTDNA has put out this year for >> R1b. YSEQ also has extensive coverage for R-M269. >> >> We are seeing a large movement to 111 Y STRs and continued growth in NGS >> testing, particularly with new Big Y orders for subclades L21 and DF27. >> >> Probably the hit volunteer effort of the year has been Alex's Williamson's >> NGS tool/analysis - the Big Tree for R1b-P312. >> http://ytree.net/ >> >> Regards, >> Mike W >> >> >

Do the 1100 unique branches now include R-U198? Loretta Lynn Layman -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike W via Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 6:46 PM To: DNA Rootsweb Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b "Gateway" Project update and request We've now passed the 8700 membership mark for the R1b project so we've grown by 2600 people this year. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background We also have seen improved resolution on the R1b formalized trees. ISOGG now lists over 500 unique branches and FTDNA lists over 1100. Partly this is due to the large number of new SNP packs FTDNA has put out this year for R1b. YSEQ also has extensive coverage for R-M269. We are seeing a large movement to 111 Y STRs and continued growth in NGS testing, particularly with new Big Y orders for subclades L21 and DF27. Probably the hit volunteer effort of the year has been Alex's Williamson's NGS tool/analysis - the Big Tree for R1b-P312. http://ytree.net/ Regards, Mike W

I recently saw a posting (somewhere) that identified how much of a parent's DNA was passed on if there were multiple children. A single child will have 50% of a parent's DNA. If there are 2 children something in the range of 73-75% of the parent's DNA has been passed on. This increases to over 90% if there are 4 children. Can anyone give me the figures that were published and the source? Thanks.

Alex is our hero! :) lol On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Mike W via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > We've now passed the 8700 membership mark for the R1b project so we've > grown by 2600 people this year. > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background > > We also have seen improved resolution on the R1b formalized trees. ISOGG > now lists over 500 unique branches and FTDNA lists over 1100. Partly this > is due to the large number of new SNP packs FTDNA has put out this year for > R1b. YSEQ also has extensive coverage for R-M269. > > We are seeing a large movement to 111 Y STRs and continued growth in NGS > testing, particularly with new Big Y orders for subclades L21 and DF27. > > Probably the hit volunteer effort of the year has been Alex's Williamson's > NGS tool/analysis - the Big Tree for R1b-P312. > http://ytree.net/ > > Regards, > Mike W > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We've had an acceleration in growth recently in the R1b project. This is > a > > chart from the project statistics taken this morning. We are over 8,500 > > people in the project. > > > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Project_Growth.pdf > > > > I'm encouraging people to upgrade to 111 Y STRs while they are on sale. > > Here is more background on the project; and the haplotype and gateway > > services provided. > > > > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background > > > > Co-admin Gail R has been fantastic in supporting the project! Thanks to > > her we have some order. > > > > Regards, > > Mike W > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I think we have something that is helpful newbie R1b folks.I've revamped > >> the big, old Kerchner R1b project a couple of times. > >> > >> You can read more about the project and its goals here: > >> https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b ( > >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background ) > >> > >> and on the accompanying discussion group here: > >> https://groups.yahoo.com/groups/R1b-YDNA > >> > >> I've got a help tool, a spreadsheet, that can help evaluate testing > >> options leveraging 67 (or 111) STR haplotypes of folks that have done > >> advanced SNP testing. You can see example screenshots here in this brief > >> .pdf file. > >> http://tinyurl.com/R1b-Haplotypes-Help > >> > >> Essentially, this is like having the Y Classic, Y Colorized and Y SNP > >> project pages all combined into one, with the ability to select > subgroups > >> of your own criteria on the fly. > >> > >> Genetic Distances, Variances, Modes, Means, etc. are calculated for any > >> selected group. > >> > >> Please invite any R1b predicted people in your projects to the R1b > >> project. They should stay in their current projects. This is just to > help > >> them further define their more youthful haplogroups. > >> > >> Eligible testers are those that are > >> 1) R1b confirmed or predicted haplogroup from FTDNA, > >> 2) at 67 STRs or willing to upgrade (111 STRs is preferable), and > >> 3) that join the R1b project. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Mike W > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Lisa R Franklin RN,BSN Admin, Franklin Y DNA Project http://trackingyourroots.com/FranklinGenetics/ FranklinGenetics@gmail.com http://trackingyourroots.com/DNA (How To presentation (23andme), tips, & helps. *2**3**&**m**e**: **The World's Largest database & coincidentally the ONLY one with all the tools you need for genealogy and DNA!--* http://refer.23andme.com/v2/share/6158544791499756901/4672616e6b6c696e47656e657469637340676d61696c2e636f6d BEST GENETIC GENEALOGY BOOK! http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Genealogy-Emily-D-Aulicino-ebook/dp/B00HJJWBU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391174801&sr=8-1&keywords=Genetic+Genealogy

We've now passed the 8700 membership mark for the R1b project so we've grown by 2600 people this year. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background We also have seen improved resolution on the R1b formalized trees. ISOGG now lists over 500 unique branches and FTDNA lists over 1100. Partly this is due to the large number of new SNP packs FTDNA has put out this year for R1b. YSEQ also has extensive coverage for R-M269. We are seeing a large movement to 111 Y STRs and continued growth in NGS testing, particularly with new Big Y orders for subclades L21 and DF27. Probably the hit volunteer effort of the year has been Alex's Williamson's NGS tool/analysis - the Big Tree for R1b-P312. http://ytree.net/ Regards, Mike W On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > We've had an acceleration in growth recently in the R1b project. This is a > chart from the project statistics taken this morning. We are over 8,500 > people in the project. > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b_Project_Growth.pdf > > I'm encouraging people to upgrade to 111 Y STRs while they are on sale. > Here is more background on the project; and the haplotype and gateway > services provided. > > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b/about/background > > Co-admin Gail R has been fantastic in supporting the project! Thanks to > her we have some order. > > Regards, > Mike W > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we have something that is helpful newbie R1b folks.I've revamped >> the big, old Kerchner R1b project a couple of times. >> >> You can read more about the project and its goals here: >> https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b ( >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about/background ) >> >> and on the accompanying discussion group here: >> https://groups.yahoo.com/groups/R1b-YDNA >> >> I've got a help tool, a spreadsheet, that can help evaluate testing >> options leveraging 67 (or 111) STR haplotypes of folks that have done >> advanced SNP testing. You can see example screenshots here in this brief >> .pdf file. >> http://tinyurl.com/R1b-Haplotypes-Help >> >> Essentially, this is like having the Y Classic, Y Colorized and Y SNP >> project pages all combined into one, with the ability to select subgroups >> of your own criteria on the fly. >> >> Genetic Distances, Variances, Modes, Means, etc. are calculated for any >> selected group. >> >> Please invite any R1b predicted people in your projects to the R1b >> project. They should stay in their current projects. This is just to help >> them further define their more youthful haplogroups. >> >> Eligible testers are those that are >> 1) R1b confirmed or predicted haplogroup from FTDNA, >> 2) at 67 STRs or willing to upgrade (111 STRs is preferable), and >> 3) that join the R1b project. >> >> Regards, >> Mike W >> > >

Thank you. I have one at present, but more on the way. Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> To: lplantagenet <lplantagenet@aol.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 26, 2015 11:51 am Subject: Re: [DNA] Question about Gedmatch You can upload as many kits as you like, using one email login -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: GENEALOGY-DNA <GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 26, 2015 8:47 am Subject: [DNA] Question about Gedmatch Do I need a separate account for each FF result? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You can upload as many kits as you like, using one email login -----Original Message----- From: Lindsey Britton via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: GENEALOGY-DNA <GENEALOGY-DNA@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 26, 2015 8:47 am Subject: [DNA] Question about Gedmatch Do I need a separate account for each FF result? Lindsey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Do I need a separate account for each FF result? Lindsey

Robert Paine wrote: It looks like I may have donated to Bonnie's other site for haplogroup 'A', but it will still go to a good cause. No worries, it does go to the same project, though it won't help us meet our goal at Experiment by Jan. 6th. We're grateful in any case, as the funds we receive in PayPal are immediately available in case of anything that comes up. Al Aburto wrote: What happens if the experiment is not fully funded on Jan 7 2016? Don't worry, that's not going to happen, because we're getting tremendous support now. Another $100 donation just came in, so we're up to $5,843! But we do have an emergency backup plan in case it looks like we're going to fall a little short. We won't let these pledges be lost, someone will add what's required to reach the target amount. But hopefully that won't be necessary, since we now need only $1,812 to get there! Bonnie -- *Farther Back We All Connect*

Dear all, This has been a wonderful Christmas for our project, as the members of this list have showered us with donations! We've made great progress, and are now more than three quarters of the way to our goal. We have $5,743 as of tonight, with only $1,912 to go, to reach our goal of $7,655. Maybe we can even surpass that goal, as we did in our campaigns two years ago. That would be great, as we had to trim back our original goal. If it turns out there is enough support, we can start preparing to test the next batch of samples that Matthew and Thomas will collect in January, which will probably cost close to $2800, depending on how many there are. I'm sorry to hear that a few people have been having trouble using the Experiment.com website. A few tips: * Once you've clicked on "Back This Project," you don't have to use the option of Facebook, or any other social media, to log in or create an account. All you need to do is click on the "Register" button on the upper right, if you have never used the Experiment site before. * On the screen the Register button takes you to, you again have the choice of either using Facebook, OR using your email, to register and create an account. Once you have your account, you're good to go. * If you already have an account, simply use your email address and your password to log in. Ignore the Facebook option, if you don't care to use it. I'm sorry that my boldface URLs acquired asterisks in the Rootsweb version of the email. Here is the simple link which hopefully, should go directly to the site: http://experiment.com/A00west It's very heartening to see how much support we have among the members of this list. It makes sense, since this is where genetic genealogy started, and the old-timers know me better than some of the recent crowd on Facebook. We still have a ways to go with this project, but there are many good signs, like Thomas' trip to Cameroon, and Dr. Melissa Wilson Sayres offering to help with the analysis of our data. Together, we can make it a great success! Bonnie : -- *Farther Back We All Connect*

Does anyone have a spare $20 off Family finder discount coupon please? Karen

Note: I've also posted these on Roberta Estes's blog--but there are lots of them. R13M9CHRDZVA ($20 off MtDNA full sequence) R13RZ08VGFBI ($10 off MtDNA full sequence) R13JWMI8MY7B R13NZAM7QHCP R131WTGJ6WM4 R13Q5U5ML2A6 R13E28ZOU2UV R13RMUOM48IA R13K0Z4NBNRG ($20 off Y37, Y67, or Y111) R13K3P0S2TPS R13ABI0U0HQ2 ($10 off Y37, Y67, or Y111) R13E0T36AYA7 R130RO4H8W44 R13K63MZEFOE R13WL98WATT0 R13Z0FXMKX88 R13LG1NE1RLB R1388M6AW6G7 ($25 off Big Y) R139GNXNHIW7 R13K7KXK7FJ5 R13UM1DWH6G6 ($5 off Family Finder)\ -- Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com

Hi Roberta, Well, I happen to be aware of a Palatine line with my surname who arrived at about that time. However, I am not aware of any medical studies regarding my surname. Says because 4 individuals appeared to have common descent, that may be an indication that an autoimmune weakness may be present(?), and therefore the study. It was stated that 4 individuals was more than the expected probabilities. I guess the argument there could be 'did more than 4 work in the same industry?' (In order to compare to environmental factors, for example.) Let me see, the thought is that the cancers are associated with atDNA regions by descent. In answer to your question, the SNP and Mbp start locations on chromosome 3 are listed. For me, I have small segment matches to some of my estimated 4th to 9th cousins interspersed between some of those locations. None from Germany that I know of, and none with an exact match to the locations listed. However, I did notice that using my cousin calculator, some of my own tiny segment matches on chr 3 between 48 and 53 Mbp have a predicted cousin level in the range of 20th to 32nd cousin. (Roughly dating back 1,000 to 1,600 years). The authors suggest early screening for a better chance of recovery. The conflicts of interest are listed on the web page. Now, I suppose the question is whether or not vendors will consider this to be medically related, and remove the segments from the results. Which would lower the chance of finding these cousins for genealogical purposes, but keep them available for medical purposes. - Dave Hamm RE: On 12/22/2015 8:33 PM, genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:33:57 -0500 > From: "Roberta Estes"<robertajestes@att.net> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Combined Genetic and Genealogic Studies Uncover a > Large BAP1 Cancer Syndrome Kindred Tracing Back Nine Generations to a > Common Ancestor from the 1700s > To: "'steven perkins'"<scperkins@gmail.com>, > <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID:<00c701d13d21$ff0b70d0$fd225270$@att.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > The irritating part is that the immigrant couple is not identified. What possible good could this be to anyone without that information? > > Roberta Estes > > -----Original Message----- > From:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of steven perkins via > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 7:41 PM > To: genealogy-dna > Subject: [DNA] Combined Genetic and Genealogic Studies Uncover a Large BAP1 Cancer Syndrome Kindred Tracing Back Nine Generations to a Common Ancestor from the 1700s > > http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005633 > > Combined Genetic and Genealogic Studies Uncover a Large BAP1 Cancer Syndrome Kindred Tracing Back Nine Generations to a Common Ancestor from the 1700s