There are certainly "less good" areas to stay away from. But more than one lab person has put out 26 million relatively decent sites to use for y snps. So 10 million can flop around a fair amount in a pot of 26 million. It would make it easier to check if known snps from other sources were to be covered or not with the BigY. And I suspect the regions around known snps have been somewhat mined already for other snps. And to tell you the truth, I think I forgot the original reason I asked FTDNA about it; at the time I thought it important. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Simonds Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Which Ten million? Ken, are there, in your opinion, better sites on Y to measure than others? Is it better to measure large blocks as opposed to 400 on each side of known SNPs? Does it make a difference? Matthew Simonds > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:51:23 -0700 > Subject: [yDNAhgI] Which Ten million? > > A couple weeks ago I asked FTDNA which ten million sites on Y are measured > in the BigY? Large blocks of sites or 400 each way from each known snp on > the chip? > For some reason they have chosen not to answer the question so far. > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message