DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-03 > 1301530985
From: J David Grierson <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] McHarg
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:24:03 +1100
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4D900B33.email@example.com><000001cbedfe$b403b8d0$1c0b2a70$@com>
I'm not sure that the variance in DYS389i goes beyond the input from a
single individual - I wouldn't call it "quite a bit". Indeed, as I
explained in the articles, this particular mutation supports the various
family legends about when the Greer line separated from the Griersons.
I used the McGee utility for the calculations, as depicted in the
various appendices on the website. I didn't make any adjustment to
DYS389, that didn't seem to be called for in any instructions I found.
And again, there seems to be a logical tie-in between legend,
documentation, and DNA as to the development of the family.
I'd be interested in alternative methodologies and their results.
Sandy Paterson wrote:
> Hello David
> I do recall a discussion with John in which I pointed out that a marker that
> mutated some time ago from say 15 to say 16 will, over time, have the
> opportunity to mutate away from 16. That will lead to some dilution in the
> presence of 16 in his offspring. That's just common sense though, it doesn't
> require simulations to prove it. Simulation could probably shed some light
> on the rapidity or otherwise with which the process of dilution occurs.
> I can see though from your Chart 1c what you are getting at. The markers
> highlighted in cerise show little variance. There's a bit in CDYa and DYS570
> but not much in the other 3.
> Can you let me have the sum of marker variance's and mutation rates used to
> do the estimate of at least 650 years? Also, I see DYS389i shows quite a bit
> of variance. Out of interest, did you change DYS389ii to DYS389ii minus
> DYS389i before doing the calculation?