It is not the "exact" matches across all the markers that determine the AAV but rather the results so far at each marker, whether the same result appears across sets and whether variances are up and down from the most frequent value. Concentrating on only "exact" matches across the entire test to draw conclusions is extremely limiting when clearly there are scattered mutations that have occured within a known time period. If I have counted correctly (and I may not have) 15 of the first 37 markers do not show any mutation at all. The AAV value at those markers is unquestionable. 8 markers have a single incident of mutation. The AAV for these markers also cannot be questioned. To my way of thinking the single mutation would be of recent origin i.e. the common ancestor with others within the set did not have that mutation. It can be disregarded unless someone else in the same set shows up with it. 7 markers have 2-5 individuals with mutations. The mutations are scattered without an apparent pattern and are not always the same value (some are up and some are down). Here again I believe that they are downline from the common ancestor for the set they are in. That leaves 7 markers which have some concentration of participants having a given mutation value. Mutations in the CDY complex (markers 34 & 35) are common, scattered across sets or grouped within sets. There appears to have been multiple incidences of parallel mutations both up and down. The values chosen for the AAV appear more frequently, have values up and down away from them, and appear in every set (except set 4 in the case of CDYa). 3 markers (437, 460, 456) are subset defining. There is a definate grouping within a set that can be descerned using those markers. The overwhelming majority of individuals in both sets have the assigned AAV for these markers. . Marker 4 (391) appears to mutate readily from a 12 to an 11 with several proven parallel mutations. Although the mutation appears as a subset defining marker by default, its history makes basing probable closer relationship between those who have it iffy. The AAV is undoubtedly 12 as that value appears across all subsets and has not in any case been shown to be the result of parallel mutation. That leaves us with marker 15 (459b) with 2 possible Apparent Ancestral Values. Eventually we may have sufficient data and documentation to show whether the 10 or the 9 is the correct AAV but perhaps we will never know. The chosen AAV at this marker is a guess. 10 is the most frequent result across ALL other Rb1 groups in the project. This marker appears to be quite stable at 10. The 10 appears in a descendent of James and Helen Scott who married in Scotland in 1669. This family did not leave Scotland until well after the early colonial immigrants arrived on this side of the Atlantic. We can have as arguements as we would like about how the first Kincaid ancestor had a mutation to 9 and a branch of his family then mutated back to the RB1 value of 10. Given the stability of the value 9 among non-RB1 groups makes this less likely. There is a possibility that a parallel mutation to 9 did take place in the case of 49289. Documentation suggests an A-1 ancestor. Hopefully we will have another test for this line that will either confirm the value or suggest that a parallel mutation took place. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis & info on The Gatheringofthe Clans in Scotland > Correct me if I am wrong but none of the Group A > participants with roots outside United States match > set 1a marker values. Is this not clearly relevant? > > Peter >