Thanks David. I must be messing up on the definition of parallel mutations. All I can find is discussions in the GENEALOGY-DNA archives, and nothing mentions that one or the other mutation had to occur first, just that the mutations are independent. Now, it also mentions that the mutations must occur in individuals in two branches of a well documented family. I don't have that. All I have is that the individuals have the surname Baird, are the same Haplogroup and match exactly on a lot of other markers. I have a modal and three individuals, 1, 2, and 3. A mutation in DYS461 from 13 to 12 takes me from the modal to 1. A mutation in DYS449 from 29 to 28 takes me from the modal to 2. Now, another mutation of DYS449 from 29 to 28 will take me from 1 to 3 or another mutation from DYS461 will take me from 2 to 3. In either way I can only "connect all the dots" with two mutations of DYS461 or two mutation of DYS449. If the family was well documented and well tested, I would know which set of two mutations would exist and the Fluxus pattern would not close. For example, if I knew that 3 was descended from 1, the pattern would show the modal connected to 1 because of a mutation in DYS461 from 13 to 12, 1 connected to 3 because of a mutation in DYS449 from 29 to 28, and the modal connected to 2, also because of a mutation in DYS449 from 29 to 28. Thus, the parallel mutation. Where am I going wrong? Bruce In a message dated 3/27/2006 3:09:22 PM Central Standard Time, dmcduke@comcast.net writes: Bruce, Your use of the word 'alternate' is much better than 'parallel' mutations. What you've got is the Fluxus program not able to determine the path which was actually taken. If you have two mutations between point A and point B, there's no way to determine which took place first. David M