It was an odd case where I was thinking that my half-sister was going to take the test, and she did the test of her own *grandson* Not as much help for *ME* as it would be if she did the test. But I suppose it confirms four generations in one swipe

Depends on the character of the person! I'd say, this guy is a GREAT half nephew. Grins, Yvonne --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Dear List, Thanks Marilyn, Greg and Max for those first responses. Following several of the threads at 23andme Community Forums and the following is an example of what basically every single person who has posted back after being moved to the new experience" Well now is the time for me to give an update on the new "experience ". 23andme did choose the correct word when using the word experience. It has been quite the experience. As of now I can not navigate the website due to site errors, the times when you can navigate the website you either want to pull your hair out or start drinking excessively. I can't even use the site because it is unusable at this time. I feel there is no value with the new "experience", the health reports are a joke, my husband has the original health reports and they are very comprehensive . The newbies to 23andMe are going to feel ripped off when they see those laughable "health" reports. The site isn't fully up and running when not getting site errors. It's like buying a brand new car without an engine. All you who have not transitioned yet savor the time you are still in this site. Forget the message boards they are truly forgettable. If you like big brother then you will love them. I am trying to think of something positive to say about the new site and so far I can't. ============= The person who posted the above message generously agreed for me to share her post with you and only asked that I not give her identity and that I would never do. Her message reflects every single post I have read on the community forums from every person that has posted following being "transitioned" to the new experience. Just visit the 23andme community forums and read a few for yourself. Linda

Which is correct? Half-Great-Nephew or Great-Half-Nephew?

Personally, I'm adopting a wait-and-see approach. My understanding is that the changes will take time to become effective, with the website updates rolling out over the coming months. There are both positive and negative aspects to the changes, and until now, we have only experienced the negative changes (with the removal of COA, etc. around Nov. 11th). >From my perspective, the 23andMe management and R&D team have historically been a great aid and catalyst for the field. In particular, 23andMe has been pioneering with their approach to relative finding with these autosomal results, with an approach that was eventually adopted by other companies. They also will be continuing to offer triangulation capabilities not available at any other vendor and the forthcoming group messaging system should be a great boon to those capabilities. But I'm also glad that many in the community, including yourself and the ancestry / genetic genealogy ambassadors like Shannon, are making their views known and providing feedback to the 23andMe management. Greg On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:40 AM, McKee via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear List, > > The apparent debacle of the new experience at 23andme has created an early > movement of 23andme members removing permission to use their test results > for 23andme's medical research plans. > > What thoughts from this List as to any meaning this removal of permission > might have to 23andme management? > > Will this help the membership in general to regain the usefulness of the > genetic genealogy side of 23andme? > > > This genealogy-dna list membership has been very quiet about the entire > 23andme situation and I am wondering why collectively this list is not > interested in the plight of those members at 23andme who are apparently > powerless and are not represented by any strong voices in the usual > community leadership. The forums and message boards in general seem to > be giving little commentary to what 23andme is doing to the genetic > genealogy side of their membership. > > It is a surprise to me to witness this lack of interest and leadership by > this forum. > > Of course, the genetic genealogy trail is ground breaking so perhaps this > just another crevasse of big business using customers in whatever willy > nilly manner desired to achieve their avarice but I would be very > interested to see some commentary as to what is going on at 23andme. > > Linda McKee > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Marilyn, Just because you share doesn't mean you have to answer surveys. I manage 12 profiles and have only filled out some surveys for myself. Max -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marilyn Bess via Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 6:25 AM To: McKee; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] 23andme members removing permission to use medical data Linda and List, I opted out all my profiles when I first read the news and saw the price increase. I joined genetic genealogy because of the possibility of braking down a brick wall. Most of the cousins donating their DNA did it for that purpose. When I ask them to do a DNA test, I ask because the person was a direct descendant of a specific ancestor. Because of the nature of big business, I opted out to have time to determine what their purpose was and how it would be used/marketed, and also because the cousins had not given permission. I am not knowledgeable of all the possibilities of the use of a persons DNA and what it might mean to their descendants. When I first test five years ago, I was uneducated about some of the aspects of DNA testing but have a much better understanding of it due to this list and reading and spending hours each day working on 23andme, GEDmatch and FTDNA. Finally, opted out because of the request to do the surveys. I did not have the expertise ro answer them for all my cousins and it was time consuming to get out of them. I can always opt the profile in on an individual basis as permission is given. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:40 AM, McKee via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear List, > > The apparent debacle of the new experience at 23andme has created an > early movement of 23andme members removing permission to use their > test results for 23andme's medical research plans. > > What thoughts from this List as to any meaning this removal of > permission might have to 23andme management? > > Will this help the membership in general to regain the usefulness of > the genetic genealogy side of 23andme? > > > This genealogy-dna list membership has been very quiet about the > entire 23andme situation and I am wondering why collectively this list > is not interested in the plight of those members at 23andme who are > apparently powerless and are not represented by any strong voices in the usual > community leadership. The forums and message boards in general seem to > be giving little commentary to what 23andme is doing to the genetic > genealogy side of their membership. > > It is a surprise to me to witness this lack of interest and leadership > by this forum. > > Of course, the genetic genealogy trail is ground breaking so perhaps > this just another crevasse of big business using customers in > whatever willy nilly manner desired to achieve their avarice but I > would be very interested to see some commentary as to what is going on at 23andme. > > Linda McKee > > ------------------------------- > 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

Half great nephew is correct. But if he's just a half nephew and you think he's a great guy, then he'd be a great half nephew. :-) Phyllis On Nov 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Wjhonson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Which is correct? > > Half-Great-Nephew or > Great-Half-Nephew? > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Half-great. gm Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Wjhonson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Which is correct? > > Half-Great-Nephew or > Great-Half-Nephew? > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Yesterday I just had a first look at one of the kits I manage that was transferred over to "new". Have to say, the emphasis on Health and medical conditions was pretty apparent. I didn't feel comfortable answering most of the questions for this person, so I was glad I was able to get out of the surveys and get to the "new" Ancestry views. I'll have to help the test takers access the site, where they can answer the questions if they choose to, or help them opt them out of the medical research entirely if that's their preference. It is their DNA, after all. My experience trying to find genealogical info was that it was very hard to find and then when I did, it was pretty disappointing. I, too, am adopting a wait and see attitude. Their ability to provide useful genealogical tools, if they choose to, is not in question. The question will be whether they choose to. Like Linda, I wasn't very knowledgeable about what exactly 23andMe was testing for when I had family members tested beginning in 2012, but I certainly benefited from their community forum, the ability to see how our matches matched with other matches, and the Ancestral composition chromosome view that displayed very nicely ethnicity estimates on BOTH chromosomes. It's great to have options, since no one has (yet) designed the perfect genetic genealogy database, tools & reports. Initial indications are they threw out the best of what they offered in the "new" view. Maybe it'll come back. It would be interesting to know if, in fact, 23andMe just sees genealogists as data samples that we pay to give them. Time will tell. Mary E Hall Santa Barbara, CA On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Max Heffler via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > wrote: > Marilyn, > Just because you share doesn't mean you have to answer surveys. I > manage 12 profiles and have only filled out some surveys for myself. > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marilyn Bess via > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 6:25 AM > To: McKee; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] 23andme members removing permission to use medical data > > Linda and List, > I opted out all my profiles when I first read the news and saw > the > price increase. I joined genetic genealogy because of the possibility of > braking down a brick wall. Most of the cousins donating their DNA did it > for > that purpose. When I ask them to do a DNA test, I ask because the person > was a direct descendant of a specific ancestor. Because of the nature of > big > business, I opted out to have time to determine what their purpose was and > how it would be used/marketed, and also because the cousins had not given > permission. I am not knowledgeable of all the possibilities of the use of > a > persons DNA and what it might mean to their descendants. > When I first test five years ago, I was uneducated about some of the > aspects > of DNA testing but have a much better understanding of it due to this list > and reading and spending hours each day working on 23andme, GEDmatch and > FTDNA. Finally, opted out because of the request to do the surveys. I did > not have the expertise ro answer them for all my cousins and it was time > consuming to get out of them. I can always opt the profile in on an > individual basis as permission is given. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:40 AM, McKee via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > Dear List, > > > > The apparent debacle of the new experience at 23andme has created an > > early movement of 23andme members removing permission to use their > > test results for 23andme's medical research plans. > > > > What thoughts from this List as to any meaning this removal of > > permission might have to 23andme management? > > > > Will this help the membership in general to regain the usefulness of > > the genetic genealogy side of 23andme? > > > > > > This genealogy-dna list membership has been very quiet about the > > entire 23andme situation and I am wondering why collectively this list > > is not interested in the plight of those members at 23andme who are > > apparently powerless and are not represented by any strong voices in the > usual > > community leadership. The forums and message boards in general seem > to > > be giving little commentary to what 23andme is doing to the genetic > > genealogy side of their membership. > > > > It is a surprise to me to witness this lack of interest and leadership > > by this forum. > > > > Of course, the genetic genealogy trail is ground breaking so perhaps > > this just another crevasse of big business using customers in > > whatever willy nilly manner desired to achieve their avarice but I > > would be very interested to see some commentary as to what is going on at > 23andme. > > > > Linda McKee > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Linda and List, I opted out all my profiles when I first read the news and saw the price increase. I joined genetic genealogy because of the possibility of braking down a brick wall. Most of the cousins donating their DNA did it for that purpose. When I ask them to do a DNA test, I ask because the person was a direct descendant of a specific ancestor. Because of the nature of big business, I opted out to have time to determine what their purpose was and how it would be used/marketed, and also because the cousins had not given permission. I am not knowledgeable of all the possibilities of the use of a persons DNA and what it might mean to their descendants. When I first test five years ago, I was uneducated about some of the aspects of DNA testing but have a much better understanding of it due to this list and reading and spending hours each day working on 23andme, GEDmatch and FTDNA. Finally, opted out because of the request to do the surveys. I did not have the expertise ro answer them for all my cousins and it was time consuming to get out of them. I can always opt the profile in on an individual basis as permission is given. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:40 AM, McKee via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear List, > > The apparent debacle of the new experience at 23andme has created an early > movement of 23andme members removing permission to use their test results > for 23andme's medical research plans. > > What thoughts from this List as to any meaning this removal of permission > might have to 23andme management? > > Will this help the membership in general to regain the usefulness of the > genetic genealogy side of 23andme? > > > This genealogy-dna list membership has been very quiet about the entire > 23andme situation and I am wondering why collectively this list is not > interested in the plight of those members at 23andme who are apparently > powerless and are not represented by any strong voices in the usual > community leadership. The forums and message boards in general seem to > be giving little commentary to what 23andme is doing to the genetic > genealogy side of their membership. > > It is a surprise to me to witness this lack of interest and leadership by > this forum. > > Of course, the genetic genealogy trail is ground breaking so perhaps this > just another crevasse of big business using customers in whatever willy > nilly manner desired to achieve their avarice but I would be very > interested to see some commentary as to what is going on at 23andme. > > Linda McKee > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Dear List, The apparent debacle of the new experience at 23andme has created an early movement of 23andme members removing permission to use their test results for 23andme's medical research plans. What thoughts from this List as to any meaning this removal of permission might have to 23andme management? Will this help the membership in general to regain the usefulness of the genetic genealogy side of 23andme? This genealogy-dna list membership has been very quiet about the entire 23andme situation and I am wondering why collectively this list is not interested in the plight of those members at 23andme who are apparently powerless and are not represented by any strong voices in the usual community leadership. The forums and message boards in general seem to be giving little commentary to what 23andme is doing to the genetic genealogy side of their membership. It is a surprise to me to witness this lack of interest and leadership by this forum. Of course, the genetic genealogy trail is ground breaking so perhaps this just another crevasse of big business using customers in whatever willy nilly manner desired to achieve their avarice but I would be very interested to see some commentary as to what is going on at 23andme. Linda McKee

Ethnicity predictions ARE most certainly science. I wrote the original FTDNA "Pop finder" and have descendants of that as well as several other different methods of doing it. Its not an "art". What clearly IS "art", however, is EXPLAINING what the science means! Apparently lots of people don;t understand error bars and, more important but vastly harder to explain, the nature of "instability" in assignments. I used to offer a service that explained results to all comers. I had to stop doing it, as I kew all along I would have to some day, when the price dropped to $100. I now only do it for Native Americans, certain specific adoption questions, Clan Donald people, and referrals from people I know on this mailing list. Doug McDonald -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mary E Hall via (And, yes, last week the SBCGS DNA Interest Group discussed "ethnicity" ESTIMATES from all the companies and why they are presently more art than science).

Hello AncestryDNA is now having a sale for the UK with price now £69 until 11.59pm on Nov 30. <http://dna.ancestry.co.uk/> http://dna.ancestry.co.uk/ Regards Jamie

Earlier on, it seemed wise to add to my tree anyone I could. Now, too often, someone writes me to say “Hey! We both have Gabiashvilis in our tree! That must be how we’re related!” (not to pick on the Georgians; simply, I love Georgian cuisine). But my Gabiashvilis are, like, 9g-grandparents of 3rd cousins of in-laws of a 7th cousin. I’d like to prune my tree of the “least-useful” people in it. I could prune everyone who’s not directly related to (the descendants of the ancestors of) my kid (the root person in my tree), but I don’t want to be quite that exclusive. It’s useful to have (whatever-distance) cousins’ spouses’ parents, for instance, because they provide triangulation information on that “branch” which is useful when tree-comparing-trying to figure out whether the Robert Wheeler in my tree is the same as the one in a DNA cousin’s tree. Can anyone think of a way to prune from a tree the most-distantly-related folks? Best, Eric OpenPGP <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> : 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159

Eric, if you know someone who uses The Master Genealogist from Wholly Genes (it is no longer available for sale although many of us still use it), it provides extensive reporting capabilities that let you create a project, and GEDCOM, tailored to what you want. Filters are virtually unlimited. Doris On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Eric S Johnson via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Earlier on, it seemed wise to add to my tree anyone I could. > > > > Now, too often, someone writes me to say “Hey! We both have Gabiashvilis in > our tree! That must be how we’re related!” (not to pick on the Georgians; > simply, I love Georgian cuisine). But my Gabiashvilis are, like, > 9g-grandparents of 3rd cousins of in-laws of a 7th cousin. > > > > I’d like to prune my tree of the “least-useful” people in it. I could > prune everyone who’s not directly related to (the descendants of the > ancestors of) my kid (the root person in my tree), but I don’t want to be > quite that exclusive. It’s useful to have (whatever-distance) cousins’ > spouses’ parents, for instance, because they provide triangulation > information on that “branch” which is useful when tree-comparing-trying to > figure out whether the Robert Wheeler in my tree is the same as the one in > a > DNA cousin’s tree. > > > > Can anyone think of a way to prune from a tree the most-distantly-related > folks? > > > > Best, > > Eric > > OpenPGP > <http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2> > : > 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: berekum@jabber.ccc.de > <mailto:berekum@jabber.ccc.de> ● Silent Circle: +1 312 614-0159 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

We had all that discussion before. Database means accessible to match against. Even when you add all up its not the largest. Besides Geno isn't FTDNA, right? I just don't like gray area marketing claims that mislead potential buyers into purchasing decisions. Let's keep to the topic of this email. If you want to discuss response rates, quality of services etc then let's open a new thread. Andreas > On 27 Nov 2015, at 06:52, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Ann > > It is true that 23andMe and AncestryDNA have larger atDNA databases than FTDNA. But it's tricky. I actually have more Matches wth segment data at FTDNA than either of the other two companies. At 23andMe, most of the Matches in their database are Anonymous and/or don't share with us - so what is the benefit of a million plus database if you cannot see the Matches or the data? And every week I get more FTDNA Matches, while 23andMe keeps a cap. And, although I now have over 10,000 Matches at Ancestry, reportedly based on phased data - but what good is that to me in chromosome mapping, triangulation or proving my ancestral lines. I could actually get even more Matches at Ancestry by just researching their Trees - no DNA test needed (since I can't see that data anyway). > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Nov 26, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> But... those are just Y and mtDNA results (until now), and not a very high >> proportion of those are integrated into the FTDNA databases accessible to >> customers. I hope the new Next Generation web pages will promote transfers >> better than previously. I do think some people are misled by the statement >> about having the largest database when they're considering where to >> purchase an autosomal test. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Andreas >>> >>> FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from their >>> science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Database size (and composition (% US versus representation from other countries)), is one of the keys to success with using DNA for genealogy, so knowing the size of each DNA test company's database is a very important consideration for deciding where, and who, to test. In our DNA interest group we've had to refute the "fact" that FT DNA has the largest DNA database in our monthly sessions for a couple of years now. The largest yDNA & mtDNA database, no doubt; autosomal....not even close to 23andMe or AncestryDNA in quantity of test takers. (And, yes, last week the SBCGS DNA Interest Group discussed "ethnicity" ESTIMATES from all the companies and why they are presently more art than science). Glad to see they've changed the statement on their initial page, if that's where people are getting their information about DNA database size. yDNA kit bought Nov 9: Kit No 451957 AncestryDNA transfer Sep 17: B75245 On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Sharp eyes! I hadn't noticed that, since I typically just go straight to > the log in area. According to the WayBack Macine, it must have happened > sometime in September. The new blurb is more accurate and emphasizes their > strength in the range of products they offer. They still don't break out > the size of the autosomal database (or the 111 marker Y test, for that > matter). I do think the autosomal database is growing at a nice clip, > perhaps because of their transfer program. I have a B40435 kit from January > and a B83238 kit from last week, so about 43,000 kits this year (assuming > all the B kits are autosomal, which I think is close enough). > > Ann Turner > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Loretta Layman via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > As to database size, specifically, here is > > FTDNA's current statement: "We have the most comprehensive Y chromosome, > > autosomal, and mitochondrial ancestry DNA database for genetic > > genealogists!" That's a bit different from "largest" database. I'm > sorry > > I > > didn't notice the change before bringing up the subject of database size. > >

Businesses are not unlike politicians, and I share Andrea's disliking of gray area marketing claims. As to database size, specifically, here is FTDNA's current statement: "We have the most comprehensive Y chromosome, autosomal, and mitochondrial ancestry DNA database for genetic genealogists!" That's a bit different from "largest" database. I'm sorry I didn't notice the change before bringing up the subject of database size. However, I'm certain that Ancestry is no less guilty than FTDNA of massaging the market. For example, it's all too easy for potential customers, as Ancestry must know, to assume from their cute commercials that AncestryDNA will inform equally about all ancestral lines, including patrilineal. I find Ancestry's commercials well done from an artistic and promotional standpoint but a bit less than honest in what they do NOT say. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Andreas West via Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 8:46 PM To: Jim Bartlett; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA's claim to have the largest DNA database is wrong! We had all that discussion before. Database means accessible to match against. Even when you add all up its not the largest. Besides Geno isn't FTDNA, right? I just don't like gray area marketing claims that mislead potential buyers into purchasing decisions. Let's keep to the topic of this email. If you want to discuss response rates, quality of services etc then let's open a new thread. Andreas > On 27 Nov 2015, at 06:52, Jim Bartlett via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Ann > > It is true that 23andMe and AncestryDNA have larger atDNA databases than FTDNA. But it's tricky. I actually have more Matches wth segment data at FTDNA than either of the other two companies. At 23andMe, most of the Matches in their database are Anonymous and/or don't share with us - so what is the benefit of a million plus database if you cannot see the Matches or the data? And every week I get more FTDNA Matches, while 23andMe keeps a cap. And, although I now have over 10,000 Matches at Ancestry, reportedly based on phased data - but what good is that to me in chromosome mapping, triangulation or proving my ancestral lines. I could actually get even more Matches at Ancestry by just researching their Trees - no DNA test needed (since I can't see that data anyway). > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Nov 26, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Ann Turner via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> But... those are just Y and mtDNA results (until now), and not a very >> high proportion of those are integrated into the FTDNA databases >> accessible to customers. I hope the new Next Generation web pages >> will promote transfers better than previously. I do think some >> people are misled by the statement about having the largest database >> when they're considering where to purchase an autosomal test. >> >> Ann Turner >> >> Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jim Bartlett via >> <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Andreas >>> >>> FTDNA has hundreds of thousands of Geno kits on file, plus some from >>> their science side. I'm not sure what the grand total of all of them are. >>> >>> Jim - www.segmentology.org > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Sharp eyes! I hadn't noticed that, since I typically just go straight to the log in area. According to the WayBack Macine, it must have happened sometime in September. The new blurb is more accurate and emphasizes their strength in the range of products they offer. They still don't break out the size of the autosomal database (or the 111 marker Y test, for that matter). I do think the autosomal database is growing at a nice clip, perhaps because of their transfer program. I have a B40435 kit from January and a B83238 kit from last week, so about 43,000 kits this year (assuming all the B kits are autosomal, which I think is close enough). Ann Turner On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Loretta Layman via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Businesses are not unlike politicians, and I share Andrea's disliking of > gray area marketing claims. As to database size, specifically, here is > FTDNA's current statement: "We have the most comprehensive Y chromosome, > autosomal, and mitochondrial ancestry DNA database for genetic > genealogists!" That's a bit different from "largest" database. I'm sorry > I > didn't notice the change before bringing up the subject of database size. > However, I'm certain that Ancestry is no less guilty than FTDNA of > massaging > the market. For example, it's all too easy for potential customers, as > Ancestry must know, to assume from their cute commercials that AncestryDNA > will inform equally about all ancestral lines, including patrilineal. I > find Ancestry's commercials well done from an artistic and promotional > standpoint but a bit less than honest in what they do NOT say. > Loretta >

Can anyone recommend a lab which will store my dog's DNA and perform mtDNA, and autosomal DNA testing.  I would like to down load the result files to try to compare with reference databases. Animal DNA Laboratory will allow me to store the DNA and perform a canine breed ID test.  http://www.animalsdna.com/www.animalsdna.com/web/page/canine.html I will be testing a Potcake dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potcake_dog which is not recognized by any major kennel club. Thank you and sincerely, Peter Peter J. Roberts