Andrew, True, it is all cumulative probability. However, the probability is extremely low and not worth pursuing (at least for now). I will reevaluate when I get some more family members tested of these two. BTW, the six markers that differed were the "fast 5" plus GATA H4 Bob > [Original Message] > From: Andrew and Inge <andrew.en.inge@skynet.be> > To: <SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 7/14/2006 2:47:20 AM > Subject: RE: [SCOT-DNA] MacWho and The Bruce > > Hi Robert > > I tend to agree, but don't forget that this is all cumulative probability. > The 31/37 McLarens could possibly be related in genealogical time. I have at > least one experience where a test >37 made two people look more similar > again. One thing to keep in mind is that the 3rd panel of FT DNA is full of > "fast changing" markers. There are also certain types of mutation which can > quickly give a big looking distance. For example YCAII can go from 19-23 to > 19-19 in one step. > > But I agree that 25 marker tests often give misleading impressions, and 37 > marker tests normally don't. > > Best Regards > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: robert mclaren [mailto:bobmclaren@earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 5:13 AM > To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] MacWho and The Bruce > > > Howard, > > Until recently, I would agree that 25-marker matches define the branch and > 37-markers define the twig. However, I have had two MacLarens match 25/25, > but at 37 markers they had 6 markers mismatch. This is too many and > indicates any relationship is too far back in time to be genealogical > meaningful. I have requested that the results be doublechecked, so if this > changes, I will let you know. > > Based on this, and some others who were in the grey area at 25 markers, I > now strongly urge anyone joining my project to get 37 markers.