GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0980140253


From: Paul Cuni <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Family Tree DNA's reporting of data
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:10:53 -0500
References: <200101091400.f09E0Qc06867@lists5.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010109111038.00a12a30@tdl.com>


Just a side note here that Family Tree DNA gave me a translation table for
the public DYS #'s. So I'm happy here.

At 01:55 PM 1/10/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>"Response to Bennett Greenspan's comments of 8 January regarding the
>non-standard nature of the alleles reported by Family Tree DNA"
>
>Hi Bennett,
>
>I will add my own comments and opinions on this subject since it is near
>and dear to my heart. As background information for the List readers, I
>used your company to analyze the DNA obtained from 30 participants in the
>MUMMA surname study. I will state that the data allowed me to answer a
>number of vexing questions regrading the common ancestry of various Mumma
>surname spellings.
>
>However, as you well know from our conversations, I too am frustrated by
>not receiving detailed the specific repeat values measured at all of the
>loci and the identification of the loci locations. I will address my
>comments relative to what you wrote.


This thread: