Yes but it still means that if there was a 8cM ancestral segment and it gets cut into half the size (just an example, recombination is basically randomly happening) for the next generation it's still a small portion of our ancestors DNA. However for all testing companies and everyone using the minimum 5, 7 or even 10 cM rule it doesn't exist anymore. But it does exist still. Given the enormous number of IBS/IBC at that range it doesn't make sense to follow them as a general rule but in case when a relationship is know from paper trail it makes sense to extend the search among a group of known cousins further. Andreas > On Dec 4, 2015, at 05:24, Jim Bartlett <jim4bartletts@verizon.net> wrote: > > Lindsey > > Our paper trail means nothing to the DNA. The DNA passes down just the same for rich/poor, famous/not-so, known relatives/not known. Just because we know the cousin, doesn't, somehow, change the quality of segments. The average ratio of IBD/IBS at any cM value will not change. > > Jim - www.segmentology.org > >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> wrote: >> >> I will definitely concentrate on the large segments. I was just wondering whether it was reasonable to assume small segments were likely to be ancestral, too, once the relationship and common ancestors had been identified. >> >> Lindsey >> >>