I side with the pack. For whatever the correct relationship is, there is a calculated value for the average cM for that relationship. Actual values will be distributed above and below the nominal average - on some distribution curve with tails. I'd use the average, but I'm interested to learn why the mean may be better. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Jan 8, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Wjhonson via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I disagree with others here and will say that the highest matching cms (if properly triangulated) represents the closeness > 100cms is really very large > > But the longest segment may be a better predictor of closeness than the total > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary E Hall via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2016 8:59 am > Subject: [DNA] Shared cM ranges for siblings > > Question for the experts... > > If 6 siblings share a common cousin, degree of which is unknown, amd the > range for the shared cMs goes from 24 cMs to 105 cMs shared, can we assume > that the highest range is the best estimate of closeness (assuming, of > course, that there isn't additional SNPs coming into play from another > ancestral line that is bumping up the total)? Four are in the 70-80 cM > range. Of course, they would all be related - on paper - to the same > degree. > > Any experience with this, and/or thoughts? > > Thank you. > > Mary E Hall > Santa Barbara, CA >