GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-09 > 1031095594


From: "Glen Johnson" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Ancestry Newly Identified DYS385 Numbers
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:28:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3D7530F7.F26573C0@bellatlantic.net>


This is part of an email exchange I had recently with Tod Schulthess, COO of
Relative Genetics. Quoted in relavant part, it reads,

". . . they [Ancestry] want to re-launch the product with more features,
better backup,
and calibrated results. The offering will be much more than is currently
available
from other providers and Ancestry has assured us that the products will be
back online
and ready to go in the near future."

"In the meantime, Relative Genetics is also using the time to prepare for
the
product re-launch and is in the final stages of calibrating the loci that
will
be reported by Ancestry. We, Relative Genetics and Ancestry, are in this
for
the long haul and want to make sure that what we are offering has a lot of
value
for the customer and that it is 100% accurate. We are in the final stages
of
the redesign of the product and service and are excited to offer this to the
public very soon."

If Relative Genetics "is in the final stages of calibrating the loci that
will be reported by Ancestry", maybe that would account for the squirrelly
condition of their DYS385.

As for the claims being made regarding the new and improved Ancestry
product, I won't comment. My Mom taught me that if you don't have anything
nice to say, don't say it.

Glen Johnson


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glennon/McNeil [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] Ancestry Newly Identified DYS385 Numbers
>
>
> My Glennon Y-DNA project is with FTDNA. However, I also had my personal
> Y-DNA done by Ancestry.com in order to get some insight on additional
> markers.
>
> Responding to a message from Emmett Mason, I recently went to my
> Ancestry page and found that the values for DYS385 a & b had been
> changed from alpha to numeric. I had not received any notice from
> Ancestry that these changes had been made.
>
> Ancestry reported these numbers as 11 and 14. Of course, I immediately
> compared these results to the same markers from FTDNA. FTDNA reported
> these as 11 and 16 for me.
>
> In addition, FTDNA has processed more than thirty separate samples from
> the Glennon group and 15 of them are 16 on DYS385 b; so, this 16 is not
> a single observation. I am concerned by this difference.
>
> Has anyone else been tested by both FTDNA and Ancestry.com who can tell
> us whether the results are the same or different from these two
> companies now that the alpha values have been translated to numeric?
>
> Is there some reason that I am not aware of why Ancestry's numbers are
> different from FTDNA's? Is there some adjustment to one of these
> numbers that must be made to make them comparable?
>
> I would appreciate any input that readers can give me. This is a
> troublesome development.
>
> This follows on the heels of a silent correction to one of my numbers
> that Ancestry made in the past.
>
> Clarke Glennon
>
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
> records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>

This thread: